| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:29 am Post subject: Bush to sign HR 6166 (against Habeas Corpus) into law today |
| Bush to sign law for tough interrogation
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 15 minutes ago
President Bush is signing a law that sets tough standards for interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects, a major White House victory that demonstrates Bush still has the political power to set the rules of war even as Iraq clouds his presidency.
Bush's plan becomes law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said that after Bush signs the legislation Tuesday, the government will immediately begin moving toward the goal of prosecuting some of the high-value suspects being held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He expected it would take a month or two to get "things moving toward a trial phase."
"In terms of having trials, for good and obvious reasons, you don't do that overnight," Snow told reporters. "You do have to make sure that the defense is going to be able to do its job properly and the prosecution the same."
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.
Bush was able to divert attention from Republican troubles when he first asked for the legislation during a dramatic speech on Sept. 6 in the White House East Room attended by some families of Sept. 11 victims.
But the distraction was short-lived as new revelations of Bush's handling of the Iraq war in a book by Bob Woodward raised fresh criticism of his administration. And Republican Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record)'s resignation from Congress after amid revelations of tawdry e-mails sent to former House pages drowned out Bush's terrorism agenda.
The signing ceremony offered Bush the chance to bask in a legislative victory. About 150 people were invited to the White House for the event, including military officers, members of Congress and members of Bush's cabinet.
"President Bush is going to mark this bill signing as a historic moment because it is a law that he knows will be effective in preventing terrorist attacks and keeping Americans safe," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.
The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all of the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and architects of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
The bill would protect detainees from blatant abuses during questioning — such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment — but does not require that each of them be granted legal counsel and specifically bars detainees from protesting their detentions in federal courts.
The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.
The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation.
Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence.
Earlier this year, an anti-torture panel at the United Nations recommended the closure of Guantanamo and criticized alleged U.S. use of secret prisons and suspected delivery of prisoners to foreign countries for questioning.
The legislation nonetheless won overwhelming approval in the House and Senate.
___
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are the New Soviet!
Posted By site admin On 18th November 2005 @ 02:50
Listen to Broadcast or
Download
We are the New Soviet!
Washington Post Reveals that America now runs Torture Prisons in Soviet Compounds
Sometimes, a piece of news breaks that should shock every American down to the very depths of his heart. A recent article in the Washington Post shows that American Intelligence operatives (which are now under the direction of the Neocons), have taken over old Soviet era compounds in Eastern Europe for use as secret detention-torture facilities.
Patriotic Americans used to look at the Soviets as the “Empire of Evil.” A chief proof of this evil was the Soviet Gulag system and its systematic murder and torture of prisoners from the earliest days of the Bolshevik Revolution. “Only an evil state,” our leaders would say, “would hold prisoners in secret, not even acknowledge their imprisonment, torture and abuse them at will, and forbid any international access or inspection.”
The United States Government under Neocon direction now does exactly the same things for which the government and media used to condemn Communists and Nazis. Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post article titled CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons from November 2, 2005. All the subsequent quotes are from that article.
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A01
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA’s internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA’s approved “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as “waterboarding,” in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
These torture facilities are even kept from the knowledge of the U.S. Congressmen whose constitutional duty is to oversee such things!
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions.
There is no question as to the fact that widespread torture is now being conducted by U.S. operatives. The President himself and his Neocon bosses formally asked congress to exempt CIA operatives from American law that would bar torture of suspects.
But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military — which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress — have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
It should be pointed out that torture has never been publicly acceptable by any American administration in our long history, not even for those duly convicted of heinous crimes. The men being held and tortured are merely said to be suspects. They have not been charged with any crimes, tried for any crimes, allowed to mount any defense, any lawyer, and are held totally incommunicado from their wives, children, family, and in secret with no oversight whatsoever!
Many have been psychologically damaged and even murdered.
The largest CIA prison in Afghanistan was code-named the Salt Pit. It was also the CIA’s substation and was first housed in an old brick factory outside Kabul. In November 2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in the death.
Perhaps those of you my age or older can remember how we Americans once knew who the “good guys” and “bad guys” were. “Why, of course, the bad guys were the evil men who imprisoned and tortured their enemies in the blood-stained cellars of the KGB or the Gestapo. The “good guys” were those who would not resort to torture of suspects or of enemies. Folks, the “bad guys” are now us. American principles are the principles of the American Bill of Rights, the principle of law and due process. Now America follows the principles of Jewish Trotskyite Neocons!
Perhaps though, “us” is not the right term, for American foreign policy and intelligence are now under the control of Neocons or Neo-Conservatives who are not actually Conservatives at all. As strange as it might seem to the uninformed, The Neocon Movement was founded and dominated by ideological Jewish followers of the early Bolshevik revolutionary, Leon Trotsky whose real name was Lev Bronstein! Trotsky was the Bolshevik who created the Bolshevik Gulag system, the greatest organized system of human torture and murder the world has ever known. And, now under these “former” Trotskyite, Jewish Neocons have directed that former Soviet compounds be used as torture chambers.
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
Here is an excerpt from my book Jewish Supremacism on the Soviet murder and torture system. Included here is photocopy directly from Solzhenitsyn’s book Gulag Archipelago II, page 79 showing the six top administrators of the Gulags.
The Communist secret police, which underwent many name changes, including Cheka, OGPU, GPU, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and KGB, was the most feared police agency in the history of the world. They imprisoned, tortured, or murdered more than 30 million Russians and Eastern Europeans. Even the more conservative Soviet historians of the 1960s were placing the number of murdered at about 20 to 40 million — figures that do not include the millions more who were dispossessed, imprisoned, exiled, tortured, and displaced. Nobel Prizewinner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his opus, The Gulag Archipelago, using the research of a Soviet statistician who had access to secret government files, I. A. Kurganov, estimated that between 1918 and 1959, at least 66 million died at the hands of the Communist rulers of Russia. Although that number may be far too high, in Gulag Archipelago II, Solzhenitsyn affirms that Jews created and administered the organized Soviet concentration camp system in which tens of millions of Christians died. Pictured on page 79 of the Gulag Archipelago II are the leading administrators of the greatest killing machine in the history of the world. They are Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel. All six are Jews.
Ironically, Russia has courageously labored to free itself from these Jewish Bolsheviks while the United States has somewhat succumbed to them. The evil comes full circle now with America under Jewish Neocon direction running torture prisons in old Soviet compounds in Eastern Europe!
The entire system is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and every fundamental principle of human rights, but remember the Neocons running this system were devotees of Trotskyite Bolshevism! So-called Neo-Conservatism is in origin a Jewish, Trotskyite movement led by Jewish Zionists who realized that they could not gain power by being open Trotskyites. So they developed a strategy to infiltrate the Conservative movement in the United States. They have been utterly successful in changing Conservatism from its once staunch defense of the European American people to supporting open borders, one-worldism, foreign adventurism, insourcing and outsourcing of American jobs and industry, and a destruction of fundamental American Constitutional rights, all under the label of Conservatism!
Be sure to read the article by Dr. Kevin MacDonald titled
[1] Neo-Conservatism as a Jewish Movement.
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/neoconservatism-as-a-jewish-movement.php
When it is shown that American government now runs torture chambers in the old compounds of Soviet Communism, how much more does it take to show you that America has become perverted from our must fundamental values.
We are the New Soviet.
And our new masters have the same lineage as the old Soviet.
By Representative David Duke, PhD
Pictured at left is Dr. Kevin MacDonald
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Fascist America:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/10/06/welcome-to-fascist-america.php | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
| Bush signs terror interrogation law
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.
Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.
A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.
Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells.
"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."
Bush signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We will answer brutal murder with patient justice," Bush said. "Those who kill the innocent will be held to account."
Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Bush's Cabinet.
He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.
The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning — such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment — but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."
"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."
Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and the use of coerced testimony as evidence. Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.
"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"
The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."
"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.
"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.
The swift implementation of the law is a rare bit of good news for Bush as casualties mount in Iraq in daily violence. Lawmakers are increasingly calling for a change of strategy and political anxieties are jeopardizing Republican's chances of hanging onto control of Congress.
Bush needed the legislation because the Supreme Court in June said the administration's plan for trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law.
The legislation, which sets the rules for court proceedings, applies to those selected by the military for prosecution and leaves mostly unaffected the majority of the 14,000 prisoners in U.S. custody, most of whom are in Iraq.
The Pentagon had previously selected 10 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison to be tried. Bush is expected also to try some or all the 14 suspects held by the CIA in secret prisons and recently transferred to military custody at Guantanamo.
The bill also eliminates some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.
The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush would probably eventually issue an executive order that would describe his interpretation, but those documents are not usually made public and Snow did not reveal when it might be issued.
___
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:23 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: 'Democracy Now' headlines: President Bush Signs 2006 Militar |
| Subject: 'Democracy Now' headlines: President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
Headlines for October 18, 2006
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/18/1439225
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
- Admin Moves to Dismiss Detainee Challenges
- Rights Groups Vow Challenge to Detainee Law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush Signs 2006 Military Commissions Act
President Bush has signed into law one of the most controversial acts of his time in the White House. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 strips detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions to challenge their own detention or treatment. It expands the definition an enemy combatant and gives the president the power to detain them indefinitely – including US citizens. Secret and coerced evidence could be used to try detainees held in U.S. military prisons. The bill also immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for torturing detainees captured before the end of last year. On Tuesday, President Bush held a signing ceremony at the White House.
President Bush: "This bill spells out specific, recognizable offences that would be considered crimes in the handling of detainees so that our men and women who question captured terrorists can perform their duties to the fullest extent of the law. And this bill complies with both the spirit and the letter of our international obligations. As I've said before, the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values."
Several Arrested in White House Protest Against Detainee Law
Outside the White House, several demonstrators were arrested at a protest that drew more than one hundred people. The activists wore orange jumpsuits and brandished dog leashes to represent the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.
Unidentified protester: "We reject that the act repudiates a half-century of international precedent by allowing the President to decide secretly and unilaterally what abusive interrogation methods he considers permissible."
Within Hours of Signing, Admin Moves to Dismiss Detainee Challenges
The administration wasted no time in putting the law into action. The Los Angeles Times reports that within two hours of the signing ceremony, the Justice Department moved to dismiss dozens of lawsuits filed by detainees challenging their imprisonment.
Rights Groups Vow Challenge to Detainee Law
Meanwhile, lawyers for detainees and rights groups say they’ll press ahead with challenging the law in court.
Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center For Constitutional Rights: "There are no guarantees and there are no safeguards for people who are being charged with terrorist activities to see the evidence against. And if you can't see the evidence against you, you can't fight the evidence against you. This is not about finding out the truth." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
| Olbermann on the Murder of Habeus Corpus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rense.com/general73/ekei.htm
Keith Olbermann & Constitutional
Law Prof Jonathan Turley
On Military Commissions Act
MSNBC
10-18-6
To assess what this law will truly mean for us all, I'm joined by Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.
As always, sir, great thanks for your time.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: Thanks, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I want to start by asking you about a specific part of this act that lists one of the definitions of an unlawful enemy combatant as, quote, "a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a combatant status review tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."
Does that not basically mean that if Mr. Bush or Mr. Rumsfeld say so, anybody in this country, citizen or not, innocent or not, can end up being an unlawful enemy combatant?
TURLEY: It certainly does. In fact, later on, it says that if you even give material support to an organization that the president deems connected to one of these groups, you too can be an enemy combatant.
And the fact that he appoints this tribunal is meaningless. You know, standing behind him at the signing ceremony was his attorney general, who signed a memo that said that you could torture people, that you could do harm to them to the point of organ failure or death.
So if he appoints someone like that to be attorney general, you can imagine who he's going be putting on this board.
OLBERMANN: Does this mean that under this law, ultimately the only thing keeping you, I, or the viewer out of Gitmo is the sanity and honesty of the president of the United States?
TURLEY: It does. And it's a huge sea change for our democracy. The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the president. In fact, Madison said that he created a system essentially to be run by devils, where they could not do harm, because we didn't rely on their good motivations.
Now we must. And people have no idea how significant this is. What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values.
It couldn't be more significant. And the strange thing is, we've become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. I mean, the Congress just gave the president despotic powers, and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to, you know, "Dancing with the Stars." I mean, it's otherworldly.
OLBERMANN: Is there one defense against this, the legal challenges against particularly the suspension or elimination of habeas corpus from the equation? And where do they stand, and how likely are they to overturn this action today?
TURLEY: Well, you know what? I think people are fooling themselves if they believe that the courts will once again stop this president from taking over-taking almost absolute power. It basically comes down to a single vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy. And he indicated that if Congress gave the president these types of powers, that he might go along.
And so we may have, in this country, some type of ueber-president, some absolute ruler, and it'll be up to him who gets put away as an enemy combatant, held without trial.
It's something that no one thought-certainly I didn't think-was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon.
OLBERMANN: And if Justice Kennedy tries to change us back, we can always call him an enemy combatant.
The president reiterated today the United States does not torture. Does this law actually guarantee anything like that?
TURLEY: That's actually when I turned off my TV set, because I couldn't believe it. You know, the United States has engaged in torture. And the whole world community has denounced the views of this administration, its early views that the president could order torture, could cause injury up to organ failure or death.
The administration has already established that it has engaged in things like waterboarding, which is not just torture. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding prisoners. We treated it as a war crime. And my God, what a change of fate, where we are now embracing the very thing that we once prosecuted people for.
Who are we now? I know who we were then. But when the president said that we don't torture, that was, frankly, when I had to turn off my TV set.
OLBERMANN: That same individual fell back on the same argument that he'd used about the war in Iraq to sanction this law. Let me play what he said and then ask you a question about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Yet with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Does he understand the irony of those words when taken out of the context of this particular passage or of what he perceives as the war against terror, and that, in fact, the threat we may be facing is the threat of President George W. Bush?
TURLEY: Well, this is going to go down in history as one of our greatest self-inflicted wounds. And I think you can feel the judgment of history. It won't be kind to President Bush.
But frankly, I don't think that it will be kind to the rest of us. I think that history will ask, Where were you? What did you do when this thing was signed into law? There were people that protested the Japanese concentration camps, there were people that protested these other acts. But we are strangely silent in this national yawn as our rights evaporate.
OLBERMANN: Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I think we've done a little bit of what we could have done, and...
TURLEY: That's true.
OLBERMANN: ... I'll see you at Gitmo. Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University. As always, greatest thanks for your time, Jon.
TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent quotes, Tony... Especially in the age of 'The New Soviet' with the signing into law of the Military Commission Act yesterday (which basically shreds the Bill of Rights via going against Habeas Corpus).
Tony wrote:
"Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government" - Robert Taft
"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat" - General Vo Nguyen Giap
"Whether or not patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, national security can be the last refuge of the tyrant" - Lord Acton"
"All of the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not doing the fighting" - George Orwell
"IF tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" - James Madison
Those who were praised by Reagan as "freedom fighters" - recruited and trained and funded by our CIA to fight a 'holy war' against the Russians in Afghanistan - are now called "insurgents" by Bush.
The chickens have come home to roost!!
Will we just NEVER learn?? Welcome to 1984 in America!! | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
Subject: Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed?
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:59:56 -0700
H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
or
Our Grandchildren are Going to Hate Us!'
Video:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mca-2006.htm
Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed
President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’
by Pat Shannan
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105629;title=APFN
Repealing the Constitution: The Military Commissions Act of 2006
by Robert Harmon, National Lawyers Guild Friday, Oct. 20, 2006
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732755.php
UPDATE: H.R. 6166: Military Commissions Act of 2006
Military Commission Act Not Lawfully Passed
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=105629;title=APFN
President’s Inaction Equals ‘Pocket Veto’
by Pat Shannan
Talk show host Alex Jones’ brief interview last week with an
unknown caller has sent constitutionists and legal
researchers scurrying for the law books.
“The Military Commission Act is not law!” the man barked.
“The ‘pocket veto’ clause of the constitution has already
nullified it.”
He then pointed out to the national radio audience exactly
what the part about “pocket veto” in Article One, Section 7
of the U. S. Constitution means. Indeed, it appears that
President Bush’s signing of the infamous “6166,” which in
effect eliminates the 4th Amendment protection of citizens
in their homes and a whole lot more, is moot. He was too
late.
Now Jones and many others are wondering, who in an official
capacity is going to point this out and enforce it?
Here is what the law says and what happens when a sitting
president sticks a bill passed by congress into his pocket
instead of signing it and sending it back:
A Pocket Veto occurs when the President fails to sign a bill
within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.
Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto
to take effect.
If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign
the bill, it becomes law without his signature.
Now to the current specifics.
From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: "...If any
Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents
its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket
veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative
maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S.
Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any
legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not
including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by
default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress
adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the
bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not
actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill
in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a
pocket veto.
Congress passed 6166 on September 29th, presented it to the
President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th.
Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had
adjourned, thereby rendering it “vetoed” by constitutional
standards.
On September 6, 2006, President Bush asked Congress to pass
the Military Commission Act of 2006. This Act – among other
things – sought to re-define U.S. obligations under Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, international treaties
signed by every country in the world. Common Article 3
places an absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of
detainees during an armed conflict.
Specifically, the President wanted Congress to replace the
absolute prohibition on inhumane treatment of Common Article
3 with a "flexible" standard, which would assess on a case-
by-case basis whether particular conduct would amount to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Human Rights First
criticized the Administration's proposal for adding
ambiguity to an otherwise clear standard of Common Article
3, and would open the door to more Abu Ghraib-style abuses.
In response to the administration's proposal, more than 45
retired senior military leaders wrote to members of the U.S.
Senate expressing their opposition to redefining Common
Article 3 on the grounds that it would compromise the safety
of U.S. Service men and women. They were joined by Former
Secretary of State Colin Powell and former U.S. Chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Vessey, Hugh Shelton, and
William Crowe, who also sent letters expressing their
opposition to redefining Common Article 3.
Spearheaded by Republican Senators John McCain, John Warner,
and Lindsey Graham, the Senate Armed Services Committee
passed an alternative bill, sponsored by McCain, Warner, and
Graham, that preserves Common Article 3. The Administration
then agreed to negotiate with the key Senators, and a
compromise was reached on September 21, which preserved the
meaning and requirements of Common Article 3. Human Rights
First welcomed this aspect of the compromise. Human Rights
First opposed the final version of the Military Commissions
Act, however, because it contained a number of provisions
that raised serious concerns about compliance with the
Geneva Conventions and with fundamental fair trial and due
process principles. Among the most troubling aspects of the
Military Commissions Act are provisions that purport to:
Grant unprecedented and unchecked authority to the Executive
Branch to label as “unlawful enemy combatants”, and possibly
to detain indefinitely, an overly broad range of people,
including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents inside
the United States
Deny independent judicial review, through habeas, of
detentions of U.S. legal permanent residents and non-
citizens
Limit the sources of law to which the courts may look and
the scope of review on appeal
Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act and seek to eliminate
accountability for past violations of the law by the
president and his administration.
Permit evidence obtained through coercion to be used in the
military commission proceedings, with certain limitations.
Permit the introduction of classified evidence against the
accused even if the accused has not had the opportunity to
review and challenge the “sources, methods, or activities”
by which the government acquired the evidence.
Restrict full disclosure to the accused of exculpatory
evidence
Give the Secretary of Defense authority to deviate from time-
tested military justice standards for fair trials
Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by
Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a
vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the
Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment
sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the
two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to
allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929,
the United States Supreme Court ruled that a bill had to be
returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable
of work. A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a
short enough time that the Senate could still act with
"reasonable promptitude" on the veto. However, a five-month
adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket
veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some
ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed
pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse
ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases[1].
For matters regarding the authority of the federal
government, the place to start the analysis is with the
United States Code. In 1 U.S.C. § 106a, we find the
following:
Section 106a. Promulgation of laws
Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate
and House of Representatives, having been approved by the
President, or not having been returned by him with his
objections, becomes a law or takes effect, it shall
forthwith be received by the Archivist of the United States
from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution,
or vote is returned by the President with his objections,
and, on being reconsidered, is agreed to be passed, and is
approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and
thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it shall be received
by the Archivist of the United States from the President of
the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives in
whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved, and
he shall carefully preserve the originals.
Attorney and constitutional expert Harmon Taylor of Dallas,
Texas harbors some consternation about the federal courts
disregarding the constitution in recent years and ruling on
federal statutes and court precedent.
He points out, “This language is curiously silent regarding
the "10-day Rule" set forth in Art. I, § 7, cl. 2. It is
also noticeably silent about adjournment and any effect that
adjournment may have on the "’10-day Rule.’
”Therefore, the next source to check is judicial
construction, and the best starting place for that is with
Supreme Court opinions. While Clinton v. City of New York,
524 U.S. 417 (1998), specifically addresses and thwarts
executive law-making efforts via the so-called "Line Item
Veto," and, so, is not directly on point with our current
question, it's very helpful on the applicability of Art. I,
§ 7, cl. 2, generally, thus, the "10-day Rule," in
particular. The Court cites the law-making procedure in
full in n.28. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 438-39 n.28. Even more
importantly, the Court identifies that the "veto" power
being analyzed is read in terms of the whole context. This
is the point raised by n.29.
Applying that to the present circumstance, it's difficult to
picture how the Supreme Court would read the whole of Art.
I, § 7, cl. 2 for purposes of "veto" analysis but then read
only part of it for purposes of a question under the "10-day
Rule." So, where all of Art. I, § 7, cl. 2 is material,
then both the "10-day Rule" and "adjournment" are material
procedural facts in determining whether an act by the
"congress" and presented to the "president" actually
produced federal law.”
Taylor also pointed out to us that a separate new question
arises as to whether the congress may enact legislation
inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions to which the
federal government is a signatory. In the recent case of
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), the
Supreme Court clearly identified several variances between
the "military commission" process being utilized by the
present administration and the trial process contemplated by
the Geneva Convention. Should it turn out that the most
recent legislation implements that same, or a very similar,
"military commission" trial process, already characterized
by the Court as "illegal," then the question arises as to
whether legislation that strays from the Geneva Convention
standards is federal law.
“The answer may seem intuitively obvious,” Taylor said, “but
this one will take some additional study and reflection.
Your conclusions are correct, constitutionally speaking,” he
said, referring to President Bush’s delayed signing of the
bill, “but you can bet that the Supreme Court, if it comes
to that, will do everything it can to avoid making a
constitutionally based decision.”
Indeed. Even as the most amateurish constitutional
historians realize, we have not been able to keep the
republic Ben Franklin feared we could not 220 years ago.
Now it seems we may have to be concerned with that
piece of philosophy from Mao -- the one about
“Power coming out of the barrel of a gun.” | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:39 pm Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
James Patton wrote:
Brilliant! Keith Olberman explains how the elimination of Habeas Corpus
nullifies NINE out of TEN of the Bill of Rights (which he now calls
the Bill of Right).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjJ9_Y8bLU4
The US Constitution says habeas corpus may only be SUSPENDED
(not eliminated) in a time of rebellion or invasion. Do you see the U.S.
being invaded? Do you see a rebellion?
This is the same Constitution Bush solemnly swore to defend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjJ9_Y8bLU4
The same one he later called 'just a goddamn piece of paper.'
When I was in Canberra I visited Parliament House
where they house a copy of the Magna Carta from 1215.
This historic document heralds a sea change from the ancient
idea of the 'divine right of kings' and gives little people rights
they never had before.
With what we did to Scott Parkin, I don't know why the politicians
don't just roll it up and use it for toilet paper?
http://www.scottparkin.org/what.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
| Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
Written by Frank Morales
Thursday, 26 October 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
Photo source: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/images/2005/08/110478.jpg
Comments
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 10:21:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the "Gulag Ameripelago" at P!.
ddjango P!P!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 09:10:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an extremely important report. It's time to urge all and sundry to think about WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO WHEN THE CONSTITUTION IS SUSPENDED. Examples: widespread general strike and announcement of tax refusal -- just the beginning but these tactics do allow a nonviolent response. Allies will need to include Republicans who still care about the republic and citizens who believe in the right to bear arms. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
Dave Gutknecht
Athens, Ohio
More details
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 11:52:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great article. Thanks. Let me share a small detail about (first responders).
Acoording to John Joyce, Battalion Chief FDNY, Motorola has control of first responders through the nationwide use of their newest radios that feature the TSPK signal. Joyce is featured on the Bonus section of the video Improbable Collapse put out by Connect The Dots and has co-authored a book titled Radio Silence. I just found this info this morning. It the responsibility of all of use who are awake to wake up our friends, realatives and neighbors.
Its all over!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 18:54:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot believe we have allowed this to happen, it must be fixed!!!!
Agree
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 21:15:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush has tried very hard at becoming Matt Dillon. An undercurrent of congressmen and senators are working to make it easier to change the Posse Comitatus law and elimiating habeas corpus. This gives the President authority to declare martial law by taking away the power of the county (and state and local government) and imprisoning individuals without due-process of the lawful constitution. Laws against such usurpers of the people go back to the Magna Carta. That doc made the "hierarchy" responsible to a body of representatives of the governed. By way of scare tactics, Congress is giving power back to the "Monarch." This is ironic in that it directly contradicts the aim of making other countries democratic. In essence, they win, "we" (US) lose!
mythought
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 22:40:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds ok to me. If somthing serious happens that the/a president feels that there will be widespread panic and rioting and stuff like that, then he should be allowed to step in and protect the rest of the citizens. If a bio-terror attack happens and there are meds for it and persons wont take it, then they should be forced, les they spread it to innocents. Illigials, they should get out anyway. They live off the gov and the people (rich and poor alike) that work everyday. It makes me mad that I sacrifice everyday for people who arent even citizens. The government wants to force them out, put them in camps, send them back, well that is better than local government. Expecally the governments in TX, AZ, NM, CA, FL, GA, and NY, whos populations of illigals actually W O R K I N G and getting free health care and dont have a right to, are out of control. This law doesnt bother me, it would only concern someone who is breaking the law.
Observant
Written by Guest on 2006-10-27 23:58:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History shows that during the mid 1930's another "elected leader" in Germany made the same sweeping moves towards dictatorship...Open your eyes America, Your elected president is running away with your laws, lives, liberties and futures. He is a very, very dangerous man!
What Constitution?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 00:03:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal of Habeus Corpus effectively ends the Constitution and Bill of Rights already. Olbermann offers a special report on his website, 'Who needs Habeus Corpus?
This was just adding the nails to the coffin, ... er coup.
The correct link to this bill is: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
I had to see it to believe it. It's easy to miss.
Sec. 1075 Patent terms extensions for the badges of the American Legion.
Sec. 1076 Use of the Armed Forces in public emergencies.
Sec. 1077 Hunting and Fishing opportunities for Armed Forces.
And this is what some call 'patriotism'?
nullSec. 1076 Use of the Armed Forces in public emergencies.
Empires
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:12:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with all Empires through-out History, America is fast approaching the point of collapse if this continues.
Human beings will NOT allow themselves to be Dominated. This is a Historical FACT.
However, If the Citizens of America do not Stand together against this threat Before it becomes Reality. Use your Imagination.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:31:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the constitution is suspended? C'mon now, isn't that a little bit of an overreaction? Maybe after the constitution gets suspended, they'll repeal the Declaration of Independence and create a new communist nation. No, that probably won't happen either. This is just one law, written about from a very obviously biased point of view.
Americans - Now Is The Time To Stand Up
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 01:50:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Gestapo tatics. Vote and make changes, while we still can vote. Time is running out. Bush could only of done this with republicans help. Vote Democrats or Independants.
Our children and the futire of America is at stake. The camps are already in place in America, now the laws are to.
Help save America.....vote!
Rights can't be taken away
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 03:57:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important thing to remember is that the US military couldn't win in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq after two tries. They can't win in a country that has a population of only 24 million people.
Keep in mind, millions of Americans don't pay taxes and never have because they simply don't want to. Right after 9/11 happened, I stopped paying income taxes to a corrupt government because I don't support evil dictatorships. You can choose the same.
A piece of paper doesn't give you the right to walk on the earth as one of God's creatures. You have that without the bill of rights or a constitution. No man can give you the right to be a free spirited person just as no man can take that right away. The idea that you are "given" what you already have is just an illusion that is created so that one might believe that their right to exist can be manipulated. It cannot. That is the biggest like ever told.
Anyone who is upset with how the US is operating today needs to study the French revolution. When push came to shove, the king and queen of France were deemed to be no longer needed and their heads were chopped off.
In my mind, there are five heads that need to be taken. Rumsfield, Bush, Rice, Chenney and Rove. Seeing those five heads stuck on pikes would be a good step towards showing the world that the people of America are NOT the government of United States.
Finally!!!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 04:07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's about time the U.S. Government took a little more control over the country. Don't get me wrong, I love this country, and I love our freedom. But, our freedom has been more than threatened in past years, it has been ABUSED. We are teetering on the edge of anarchy becasue people have distorted and abused their 1st amendment rights. The 4th amendment is a crock. And the 2nd amendment should be adapted to modern needs. Thank God and our forefather for the constitution we have, but it needs to change with the times. I agree completely with martial law and can't wait to see it in action. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 05:15:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if hillery clinton gets in there will be another civil war here
We are in serious trouble
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 06:33:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very bad, we thought he was bad before just wait now that he can declare marshall law he won't have to leave the White House in 2008, he can just declare marshall law and install himself as the new Castro.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 06:50:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought provoking!
John Galt
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 07:10:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are about to experience Bagdad in America.
Revulsion is one step from revolution.
Repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act after Katrina was a trial balloon to see what would be tolerated by the People; this action was met with deafening silence and the stage was set.
Just as there was never any intention to rebuild all of New Orleans, neither was there ever any intention to leave Iraq.
There is a limit to the People's patience. It would be best for the Federal government not to overreach.
rj
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 07:51:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us not forget the dark days for the CONSTITUTION under the dark and insidious reign of JFK. Thousands of U.S. Army troops and Federal Marshals sent into Ole Miss and Alabama without Marshall Law. Look what 8 years of Clinton/Algore has wrought. While he played with Monica's *****; we get Musilum terror camps, Waco, the Gonzalus boy sent to Cuba at gun point and our Military gutted by Liberals in Congress. Liberals like Leahy, Madam Clinton, John MaCain and Kerry. We may have until 2008 to be ready. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
nscherz2000@yahoo.com
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 08:22:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you better read this!
Peterson
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 08:56:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked to this, I read that Bush has been pushing for an amendment to the MC legislation that would allow the authorities to shoot draft dodgers on sight. For sure, we're living in very scary times and here's me thinking thank god I left the States two years ago.
Jim Eagle Feather
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 11:11:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that Bush signed these Martial Law changes the same day as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, makes it very clear that his Junta is lying when it says the Military Commissions Act was not meant for American citizens.
SJSHECKMAN@COMCAST.NET
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 12:45:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS
better re think some things
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 13:26:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to remember back in the summer of 05 when we had the hurricaines that people were pissing and moaning that we needed Troops brought in to help. We couldn't place troops there because of the laws.
He signed those laws so that we can have troops where we need them and when we need them.
I also notice that you intersperse fact with your own comments about what can happen.
In your own words "For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event."
In the case of a bio-terror event, I think I'd be happy to have the people quaranined. Would you rather have them be able to just go wherever they want to infect even more people?
Also, one would look at some african nations and see what happens when a war breaks out and 100 of thousands of people fee over the border and enter another country to live in huge unmanaged refugee camps, I think the US is right to have plans in place in case an event like that happens.
I feel that most of you people are the same people that piss and moan about when something doesn't go right. It wasn't planned for, how in the world could they have missed the point. It has to be some kind of plot!
hknight@citynet.net
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 14:38:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the ocean rises 4' due to "Global Warming",then we will need some major crowd control,And yes I hate to say it but a strong Dictator would probably help. That's the only reason I can see for some thing like this.Can any one send me a coppy of the Pentagon,s report on global warming,I hear it's really scary.
JFK's days were GREAT days.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 15:44:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nscherz2000@yahoo.com, you stupid nutjob, JFK federalized the guard in order to escort a 19-year old black female to her university classes, even though the racist pigs were standing at the door to the lecture hall trying to stop her from entering. Now, if you see a problem with that, you're a total racist pig also. Enjoy your KKK rallies because that's where you belong.
Immune System Response
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:01:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think of the society as a single living organism, then this is an immune system response to what the organism perceives as an infection.
Like a fever or bout of the runs that in of itself can kill the body, it is still the bodys way of killing of an infection.
The survival f the organism IS threatened by its own immune response but it still has to respond in the only way it known how.
The fever (as it were) is still a ways off from breaking and (to extend the metaphor) the body is stll trying to produce th correct antibodys to eliminate the pathogen.
This will continue (for better or (perhaps only in the sort term) worse.
As this natural process contiues...God help us all, and God bless America (for she is in need of the blessing)
Peace...(if possible)
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:05:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is horrible....all the blood, sweat, and tears that our forefathers have given for (at the time) the idea of freedom and deomcracy to now just be sucked up and thrown away is an insult to them and the destruction of the foundation of America and its principles.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 17:07:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is horrible....all the blood, sweat, and tears that our forefathers have given for (at the time) the idea of freedom and deomcracy to now just be sucked up and thrown away is an insult to them and the destruction of the foundation of America and its principles.
Rockwell
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 22:59:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are indeed dark times. Our only hope: the coming elections and a new Congress that will do its job.
iVoryTowerz
Yay bush
Written by Guest on 2006-10-28 23:01:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm tired of you Bush haters. No one really wants to hear it. Bush does not want to take your rights away, he hasn't lied to the country, and he doesn't want to hurt Americans. Have a little more faith. Its for protection of America. He's not "torturing" americans, he's torturing terrorists. Chill you crazy people.
a few simple country boy observations
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 00:38:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....perhaps he was responding to the liberals that not only blamed him for rita and katrina, but also blamed him for doing nothing....now he doesn't have to wait for a worthless mayor such as the mayor of new orleans to help people that blame him for no help. remember those that accused him of "no help" are experts on help, having been on welfare for three + generations. also,perhaps he can also round up the illegal aliens that are running rampant into my country, to where we now have mexican mafia shooting up houses in my neighborhood, because the illegal immigrants living in these houses aren't paying their drug accounts off in time. i personally hope the 82nd airborne drops in and rounds up every wetback in texas
Larry Hawkins
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 00:46:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Please God, stop the Madness!
Freedom?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:11:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 6 years I have become further disinchanted with our government. Unfortunately I made a huge mistake voting for George Bush and other republicans. I am sorry for what I have done and plan to correct my actions this election season and in 2008. I hope it is not to late.
Truly sorry from Colorado
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:19:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi people
I am not sure if alot of you follow me when I talk but this is one of those times when I am at a loss for words. Over the last few years I have watch our democracy corrode at the hands of men and women who care not for the american people that they supposedly represent. I have watched as they strip away at our civil liberties and look over our shoulders. They have lead us down a path of self destruction. Our very way of life is now at stake. President Bush and his administration, the same people who openly lied to drag us into a war that has cost the lives of thousands of our brave soldiers and hundreds of thousands of lives in the middle east for a cause that was not ours to deal with in the first place. They have total control over marshal law now. On October 17 of this year President Bush quietly signed a bill into law that may be a fatal blow to our democracy and to our way of life. With a slight movement of the hand he has nullified laws that were set inplace to protect the american people from tyranny on a domestic front. You see at one time great men and women set down a set of laws that would protect the people of this great country from a president gaining to much power. Here is the article on the offending piece of legislature.
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
If you care at all about your country, you family, or the ones you love you will rise up and act against this vile treachery.
Not Watching Anymore,
Nelson Shawn Kauley
A Cheyenne Indian
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:26:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is old news. Do a web search on "REX-84", and you'll see that this sort of thing has been in planning for a long time.
First FEMA gets shuffled into Homeland "Security", now the assaults on Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention? We're already well down the slippery slope.
Under the radar...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:28:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any other egregious 'rule'...most people won't even notice until troops are on the streets frisking people at checkpoints. They slipped this one under the radar, and used the Military Commissions Act (which was signed into law on the very same day) as a diversion.
This administration knows that it will lose it's majority in the Senate here in a few weeks, and they're doing everything they can to consolidate power now.
A little editing, please. Air Force in
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 01:42:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These kinds of slip-ups IN QUOTES, no less, really tend to discredit your ranting. I really have no idea what to believe, and what you say sounds very dark, but how am I supposed to place any reliance on your article when you are saying there was a USAF in 1878?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 05:26:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I know is if they want to come round me up, no amount of legislation is going to help them accomplish it. I will go down with both barrels blazing, as will a million of my fellow Americans.
If you don't own a firearm, now is the time to get one. It could save your life some day, and the way things are going, it probably will.
Seriously, how can this be happing?
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 06:05:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When is the American public actually going to take notice of these things? I think if the senate gave a shit and the people pulled their head out of their ass we wouldn't be in this situation!
With the '06 elections coming up, there are bound to be plenty of anti-Bush administration rallies. This might be the perfect time for our fair president to use his new power against people he sees as "threats".
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this a violation of the 10th amendment?
Oh Please
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:22:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First it was Bush the idiot, Bush the Election Stealer, The Tool of Karl Rove. Now we have the conspiracy of dunces suspending the Constitution.
The liberals were wrong about Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush & Quayle, Clinton for God's sake, and Bush again.
Everytime this nonsense comes up I vociferously encourage you to promote it from the mountain tops, because it will be your undoing
Merry Fitzmas to all and to all a goodnight!
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:25:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:26:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next thing you know he'll pass something saying he can be president for life
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:36:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us not forget the dark days for the CONSTITUTION under the dark and insidious reign of JFK. Thousands of U.S. Army troops and Federal Marshals sent into Ole Miss and Alabama without Marshall Law. Look what 8 years of Clinton/Algore has wrought. While he played with Monica's *****; we get Musilum terror camps, Waco, the Gonzalus boy sent to Cuba at gun point and our Military gutted by Liberals in Congress. Liberals like Leahy, Madam Clinton, John MaCain and Kerry. We may have until 2008 to be ready. We may have until 2008 to be ready.
JFK was ensuring that democracy was enabled for ALL American citizens, something "Ole Miss" thought applied only to whites, and he did it without suspending Habeus Corpus. Do you agree with "Ole Miss"? As for "Lets blame Clinton", terrorists are thriving under Bush. There are many more now then when Clinton was pres. Bush ignored the "terrorist issue" for 8 months, which allowed 9/11 to happen. Waco was an insane Fundy Christian cult, like the many that our dear leader panders his office to. And do you really think the state has the right to take a child away from a father just because it looks good on the news?
PS: It's spelled "Martial", as in war, not Marshall. It's in the title of the article, for God's sake.
darkstar1970
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 09:46:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
funny how the clinton admin "gutted" the military, and yet in 2001-2003 it was able to topple two regimes halfway around the world in record time. i remember no massive military building/spending increases during Dub's fist year or so.
canada
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:02:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
start learning this anthem as it may be useful in the near future
We the people are in for a world of SHIT
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:07:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When are we the people of the USA going to rise up against this soon one world order and take back what is our God given RIGHTS??? It is time we stand together as ONE!!!
Remember
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 10:30:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rights are only for upstanding, Christian WHITE people.
Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, and others need not apply.
Thus rule the Republicans.
Thanks
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:33:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for writing this illuminating piece. It's starting to replicate across the internet now, so I'm hoping more people will become aware of it. What an enormous bill with so very many provisions. Kudos for finding this within it.
=e
Leahy is a hack.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:43:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leahy is a partisan, BDS hack, why should I listen to what he says?
This is such a fucking joke...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:47:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guess none of u visit gun boards or have little regards for 2nd Amendment issues? HR5122 been hotly debated since May and the NRA has continually seek support from gun owners and right advocates in making their voices heard by our representatives. Like it or not, regardless of ur political views and affiliation, the NRA(and many others, like Jews for the Preaservation of Gun Ownership jpfo.org) has always worked and continues to work in preserving our Constitution.
http://www.givethemback.com/
watch Calif Highway Patrol officers attack New Orlean resident Pattie Conie during hurrican Katrina disaster relief:
http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed
it's already happened and will continue as long as we let it happen! Stop the blame games and get involved!!
ET man
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 17:59:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We havent been under the constitution since 1913, emergency powers act puts us into martial law. Ever noticed the state courts have the gold ribbon around it. Admiralty law. Not Constitutional Law. President overrides constituion and supremet court as no power as long as emergency pwers act is initiated and every president inacts it first day on the job. They are the terrorist not anyone else. The bankers, just look at income taxes. why do they keep going after it when Supreme Court already made a ruling????? Admiralty law overides Supreme Court. The next move now that the Detention Act(HR 6166) is signed is to move in a Democratic house and president to take away the guns, then you dont want to know the next move.
End of the US
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:33:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th Reich has begun. Already the gestapo detains demonstrators, suspends habeas corpus, bans books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, conducts warrant-less wiretaps, uses false-flag operations (9/11) and starts illegal wars based on lies. Neo-cons are the new Nazis. Much of Germany did not know what was going on until it was too late. We can probably agree that the WWII German populace was far more intelligent that today's average American. How long until they realize?
Final link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Cynthia
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:36:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we going to go thru another debacle like OHIO State in the 70's. I thought all of that was behind us. My poor kids!
Why don't we look at what 8 years of Cl
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:51:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nscherz2000@yahoo.com you are ignorant to say the least. Our economy was strong. The American dollar was really worth something when travelling abroad. There was no deficit. And we had more allies than we ever had before. Maybe you should get laid.
bear90039@yahoo.com
Jesus
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 18:53:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conservative parodies on this blog are hysterical. At least, I'm assuming there are no real conservatives posting here considering the mindless drivel I'm reading.
The constitution: Is Bush empowering en
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 19:35:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: Military members take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America, from all enemies, foreign and domestic... Some would say that Bush is only trying to make it easier to control a situation which might get out of control in the US during an emergency.
Fact: A terrorist attack has already occurred. The only quetions remains now is when he'll make the declaration?.. Possibly on election day in order to prevent the constitutional process from removing him from office?
When this power used by the president, then you can rightly count on the enlisted military member's support to the president, as it is in their oath to support the president. However, the officers swear to defend the constitution. Being that the enlisted members will look to their chain of command for a lawful order, and as the officers may object to support the president, it will be the enlisted following the order of the president in order to bypass or remove an objecting officer.
Fact: The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will [B}support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic[/B]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
for a history of the oath:
Military Oaths
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 19:51:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm tired of you Bush haters. No one really wants to hear it. Bush does not want to take your rights away, he hasn't lied to the country, and he doesn't want to hurt Americans. Have a little more faith. Its for protection of America. He's not "torturing" americans, he's torturing terrorists. Chill you crazy people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ur right, he isnt tourturin americans, just prisoners of war, which i believe is a violation of international law... so is the american presidant above the law? u seem 2 be sayin its ok 2 torture people, so yeah, bush isnt tryin 2 hurt americans... just everyobody else!!!!!!!!!
this may shock u but: america isnt the ONLY country in the world
as one
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:33:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one world order is right. be prepared to stand up and fight. our freedoms are at stake. Laws were made to protect us. and now only to conrol us...
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:46:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 30% of Americans vote....
less than 15% of that group have any idea of the issues........
Americans have not been asked to sacrifice in the Korean war, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Iraq.....
No one cares about the economy except when they pump gas.....
Any one who reads history knows that at the outset of every war the Presidency seeks more power, contains civil liberties,Lincoln, WIlson, Roosevelt and throws its people in concentration camps, Japanese in WWII, Germans and Italians during both world wars....
Our system survives......
The Ogre
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 20:54:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be an epidemic of "chicken little" amongst us. However, it appears that there are a few sane people on this blog.
There are good reasons for the actions taken as described. The President is being pro-active like a leader should.
I really enjoy reading some of the lefties'diatribe. It's better than the Sunday funnies. null
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 21:36:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an interview w/ the author of this article, Frank Morales
I hope that law enforcement and military officers will remember their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution when they are being asked to follow these laws, and refuse.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 21:45:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
next thing you know he'll pass something saying he can be president for life
Some repuclicon tried back in February to suspend that part of the constitution that limits presidency to 2 terms
Isn't this a violation of the 10th amendment?
Just like the MCA06 violates the the 5th, 4th, 6th, among others and bush violating the first with his "Free speech zones"
"These are the times that try men's souls"-Thomas Paine
"The tree of liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson
Quite talking
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:34:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A I have stated in many bloggs the time for talk is over. You can write and bitch 24/7 and it will not make one bit of difference. We have passed the "if" stage and must prepare for the "when" stage. What will happen has happened before, Germany in the 1930's is but one example. We have sat on our ass while the tv and news media have fed us censored news and most of you didn't even know it. What you must do now is prepare yourself and those you love for the coming martial law and the slavery and "relocation" that is to follow to the camps that Kellogg, Brown and Root are being paid $383,000,000 to renovate and prepare. Plan well and know what you are going to do when soldiers, ours or those from other countries, take to our streets. If you are going to make a stand, so be it, be prepared, have everything you will need right down to the water you will drink. If you plan on departing for other parts have several routes picked out and have everything you will need including extra gas to get there. Remember what you don't have you may very well have to do without. Also don't pack what you don't need as it can slow you down in more ways than one.
Some may question my words by saying we are not at that point yet. My answer to that is "that point" may come in an hour, a week, a month or a year. Should you guess wrong it could be a fatal mistake. If the current situation does come to the point where these actions are necessary we may still be able to take back our country but only if in a time of great confusion, stress and fear you have plan that will allow you to seek others with similar feelings away from the controlled areas.
In closing one last thought. Write all you want of what the bastards in Washington have done to our country but remember they already know what they have done and therefore your words become empty. On the other hand, if thousands or millions were to write of the defensive moves possible and/or necessary to be taken in preparation for flight or retaliation of an unlawful move against us by anybody, foreign or domestic, then and only then will your words be heeded by those making these laws that are trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If the unthinkable happens remember that there are less than a million of them and nearly 3 million of us. If only one in 20 stand and fight thats 15 million vs 1 million and I'll take those odds any day. Plan well and good luck.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said....
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:35:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote is much disputed as to precise wording, but it is no less applicable for the dispute:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither."
Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that Americans truly do deserve neither security nor liberty.
Also, for your reading pleasure, may I recommend Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here". Or George Orwell's "1984". And keep in mind, we now have the technology to implement Big Brogher, with no effort at all. Hell, we're already on the way, with phone taps of civilians not suspected of any crime, monitoring of internet traffic and emails, et cetera.
It Can't Happen Here at Wikipedia
Complete text of the novel at Project Gutenberg
Review of It Can't Happen Here
lord garth.
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:36:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People across the world ask me why the American people will not do anything to stop this..
There is a reason why,, laws like this are barely covered in the controlled US press. And if they are covered, they are "to stop terrorism, and they apply to somebody else."
And,, we all know they apply to us, but even thought the laws are in effect, the state will not immediately enforce them. ......yet !
Then, they will enforce the laws to see how the people will react.
If the people react , they will back off..Oops ! Sorry !
Then later, they will do it again,, until we are used to the new laws.. and few people object .
Those people will be labled "lone wierdoos".
Result:
The Law successfully passes, and it is successfully enfirced.
The American people,, are a
Frog,, boiling slowly in a pot.
ilyich
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:44:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A frog will die if placed in boiling water (obviously), but frogs will leap out of boiling water, so instead you slowly raise the water temperature by a fraction of a degree a day until the frog is dead. He didn't even see it coming.
These laws are only part of the problem, it was a long slow drive to where we are now, begining I think with the repeal of the "fairness doctrine" which required broadcasters to allow for all points of view. With the fairness doctrine out of the way idealogues like Rush Limbaugh were free to interpret the facts to the liking of their side of the aisle, and convince millions of Americans that this version of the story was the true one: "We are winning in Iraq!" despite all empirical evidence. America has gotten partisan to the point that you can choose which news broadcast fits your view, congressmen cannot cross party lines without incurring the wrath of their party leaders, and one side calls the other side "traitors" perhaps as a precurser to rounding them up. If you think the US is only torturing and holding "terrorists", fine, but what proof do you have either way? Nobody knows for sure WHO'S incarcerated in the secret prisons, so how do you know only the guilty are imprisoned? This is a great leap of faith, and America was founded on the idea that the people shouldn't put too much trust in their leaders, otherwise we would have elected kings and not short-term caretakers.
There are a surprisingly large number of people commenting here who defend the law and/or Bush. Would you defend this law if it were President Hillary Clinton signing it? Considering all the bile spewed at the Clintons over the years, you should be very afraid if a President Hillary were suddenly to have this power, and if it's not good for Hillary to have it, it's not good for Bush to have it either.
ilyich
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:49:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a related note: I have been pondering what Rove's "October Surprise" might turn out to be. This law makes it possible that a "terrorist act" on or around Election Day might cause the Pres. to declare martial law and suspend the election until things are "safe" again for democracy.
I wonder where Rove will have his minions create this "terrorist act"?
You think I'm paranoid? Well relax, I'm half-joking (but only 'half'). Certainly I hope I'm wrong on that count, but it's an interesting thing to contemplate.
tories
Written by Guest on 2006-10-29 22:53:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
remember most of the people of the revolution were not involved in the war and a great many were tories,supporters of the crown.Like those that confess support of what Bush is doing.Most Americans are unaware or just do not care that we have financed our lifestyles through war and economic predation of other nations natural resources-stealing. We will have to one day fight again for our freedoms and the Tories will be there to complain, and after we win to then enjoy the fruits of liberty just like their fore fathers.To those who think Bush is right get the hell out of America and set up your dictatorship in the ant arctic.
Read H.R. 5122--323 sec. 1075
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 00:38:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president may _only_ employ armed forces under situations where the state fails to _protect_ and uphold the _rights_ of the citizens including _constitutional_ rights. There's nothing here that encourages the declaration of martial law. The whole purpose is to employ armed forces to _save_ lives _not_ control them.
This article couldn't even bother to get functional links, so here's one:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122
Blackfeather
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 01:39:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been put into place just in case Karl Rove can't manage to steal enough congressional elections to keep control of both houses. If the Diebolt voting machines and the mass disenfranchisement of blacks don't do the job this time there will be another black ops false flag attack and martial law. Democracy is dead in the U.S. Believing that elections will save us is whistling in the dark. Look to your guns, oh ye Sons of Liberty.
Adam Selene
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 01:48:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a tendency to hear of something terrible the Republicans are doing and assume the Democrats are opposed. Vice-versa, of course, in the case of something the Democrats do.
Better find out how your State's representatives voted. You might be surprised. We're in the midst of a war for oil, and the supplies of oil are depleting. The Democrats have mostly signed off on this stuff.
I'm planning on voting for Green Party.
willi
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 02:01:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geeze..... Don't blame this one on me. I voted Libertaian.
Freedom of Speech and you, by a former R
Written by Guest on 2006-10-30 03:41:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking back on the ways life has evolved, in these United States, I am often appalled at the importance we place on some small things, such as nudity and language, and the shocking and utter lack of import some people deem to place on other, shall we call them miniscule issues like lying, cheating, stealing, and torture, like our President has been caught doing. Oh, but wait, the torture thing is ok, now, it's been made all right by a law recently signed.
Now, you may wonder what this has to do with the 1st amendment. Why, simply, if we didn't have it, it'd probably be illegal of me to make such a criticism of our Presidential Crook, or any of the other congressional crooks who not only let him get away with all that he's been caught doing, but fully support him while stuffing their own pockets. I bring this up in response to a ill-informed and un-educated note, earlier, talking about 3 of the amendments to the bill of rights; the first, about it's 'abuse', which, I assume, he either means how people shouldn't be allowed to express their point of view _or_ how people use scatological language(that's curse words) in day to day usage. I'm fairly certain he didn't mean the parts about right to worship what religion you choose, though in our ever-increasing fundamentalist population in our officials that could well be too. His statement that the 4th amendment was a 'crock', which I believe was to mean the slang term 'crock of sh*t', to wit that we are not entitled to, nor do we have the right of privacy, is simply amazing, and the thought that the 2nd amendment, that we have the right to bear arms and use them, in times of need, even against our own government(as has been noted, time and again, that this is what the founding fathers meant) needs to be 'updated for todays world' is similarly amazing.
In the words of one of the foremost Republicans; "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." and his statement on judges is also quite poignant, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis EST ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." He was also credited with saying "I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretense of governing, they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe and to the general prey of the rich on the poor." and, even more relevant to today's status with our silent press; "Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves! Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and alwa | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
| http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023
We're All Prisoners, Now: US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA
October 26, 2006
Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,
2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us
permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all
airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain
clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the
United States.
It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document"
that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually
unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you
want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the
agency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the
request at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United
States.
Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder on
assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to
expire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait!
You can't get on, because you don't have permission from the HSA.
Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid
detention center, where you and others who are now effectively
"stateless persons" are detained, potentially indefinitely, until
their immigration status is sorted out.
Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United
States? No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be
an administrative determination made secretly, with no right of
appeal. Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant,
without probable cause and without even any particular degree of
suspicion. Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn't like you, you're
a prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or
not you hold a U.S. passport.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." The
United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom of
travel." So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a
lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.
Think this can't happen? Think again. It's ALREADY happening. Earlier
this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old a
native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibition
lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history
that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.
If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to
this list.
For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://
hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:23 am; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
| From: "Ronald" <rbleier@igc.org>
To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
Subject: Worse times coming soon: K. Nimmo +F.Morales -Martial Law Act 2007
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:03:28 -0500
Once again, Kurt Nimmo puts it all together, here on Bush’s stealth signing of a bill making it easier for him to declare martial law. In connection with a similar situation in the Nixon administration, Nimmo quotes Howard J. Ruff:
“The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it”
Nimmo points out that we know all too well about Bush’s lack of good character.
I would only emphasize that this pre and soon to be post election period -- the holidays coming up and the new (once again) Republican Congress installed in January -- is likely to be our last quiet time until the 2008 election season -- if elections are on the table then.
One might think that with all the disaffection even from Republican-Neocons (try Googling: Perle regrets Iraq war), more foreign adventures like an attack against Iran might be foreclosed. However, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove are men of steely determination not to say vicious monsters (as they will no doubt demonstrate in ways we haven't yet seen), and they will push forward on their endless war agenda if at all possible.
Our only hope and it is fading fast is that the media will wake up to the upcoming stolen elections and raise a hue and cry that will keep the clique on the defensive.
--Ronald
www.bleiersblog.blolgspot.com
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo wrote:
Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007
Saturday October 28th 2006, 9:44 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=631
On October 17, with little fanfare, the unitary decider signed H.R.5122, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. “The act provides $462.8 billion in budget authority for the department. Senate and House conferees added the $70 billion defense supplemental budget request to the act, so overall, the act authorizes $532.8 billion for fiscal 2007,” explains Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service.
According to a press release from the office of Senator Patrick Leahy, however, the bill takes a “sizable step toward weakening states’ authority over their [National] Guard units, according to the congressional leaders who are leading the fight for Guard empowerment.” Leahey and senator Kit Bond, a Montana Republican, “said the conference agreement is expected to include a provision making it easier for the President to declare martial law, stripping state governors of part of their authority over state National Guard units in domestic emergencies. The provision is opposed by the National Governors Association and by key leaders in both the House and Senate.”
Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and activist in New York City, writes that the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 actually encourages the establishment of martial law “by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.”
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Bush demanded Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco yield to him the command over any National Guard troops sent to the area. “Bush wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have allowed him to take control over all armed forces deployed, including Louisiana’s National Guard troops. But under the terms of the act, he had to get the assent of the legislature or the governor of the state. The legislature was not in session and Blanco refused,” writes Deirdre Griswold. As of September 11, 2005, Griswold notes, citing the Los Angeles Times, “Bush has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, but his administration is still discussing how to make it easier for the federal government to override local authorities in the future.”
Leaning on Blanco was considered politically sensitive. “Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” an anonymous senior administration official told the New York Times on September 8, 2005. Blanco “rejected a more modest proposal for a hybrid command structure in which both the Guard and active-duty troops would be under the command of an active-duty, three-star general—but only after he had been sworn into the Louisiana National Guard,” the New York Times adds.
Bush’s Martial Law Act of 2007 modifies the Insurrection Act and deals yet another blow to the Posse Comitatus Act. “Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, ‘Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,’” explains Morales. “Section 333, ‘Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law’ states that ‘the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (’refuse’ or ‘fail’ in) maintaining public order, ‘in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.’”
For the current President, “enforcement of the laws to restore public order” means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against “disorderly” citizenry—protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called “illegal aliens,” “potential terrorists” and other “undesirables” for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That’s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up “immigration emergency” and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
Back in January, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers at undisclosed locations in the United States. As usual, the New York Times either missed over glossed over the significance of this development, characterizing it instead as a waste of taxpayer money. Peter Dale Scott, however, hit the nail right on the head. “For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North’s controversial Rex-84 ‘readiness exercise’ in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary ‘refugees,’ in the context of ‘uncontrolled population movements’ over the Mexican border into the United States. North’s activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.”
As Scott notes, plans for detention camps are nothing new, and indeed “have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for ’suspension of the Constitution’ and ‘declaration of martial law.’ The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida’s deputy, John Brinkerhoff.”
Brinkerhoff told PBS: “The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war.”
Giuffrida was the Reagan administration’s first director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from 1981 to 1985 and was the head of then-Governor Reagan’s California Specialized Training Institute, a National Guard school. In “1970 he had written a paper for the Army War College in which he called for martial law in case of a national uprising by black militants. Among his ideas were ‘assembly centers or relocation camps’ for at least 21 million ‘American Negroes,’” writes Sam Smith. “During 1968 and 1972, Reagan ran a series of war games in California called Cable Splicer, which involved the Guard, state and local police, and the US Sixth Army. Details of this operation were reported in 1975 in a story by Ron Ridenour of the New Times, an Arizona alternative paper, and later exhumed by Dave Lindorff in the Village Voice…. Cable Splicer, it turned out, was a training exercise for martial law. The man in charge was none other than Edwin Meese, then Reagan’s executive secretary. At one point, Meese told the Cable Splicer combatants: This is an operation, this is an exercise, this is an objective which is going forward because in the long run … it is the only way that will be able to prevail [against anti-war protests.]”
In response to Richard Nixon’s October 30, 1969, issuance of Executive Order 11490, “Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,” which consolidated some 21 operative Executive Orders and two Defense Mobilization Orders issued between 1951 and 1966 on a variety of emergency preparedness matters, Howard J. Ruff noted: “The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it” (see Diana Reynolds, Civil Security Planning).
Not only is Bush’s lack of “good character” obvious, he also considers himself our unitary decider with the power to ignore over 750 laws. “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,” the Boston Globe reported in April.
“From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced signing statements containing fewer than 600 challenges to the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George W. Bush (Bush II) has produced more than 800,” explains the American Bar Association Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
“It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president’s polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes,” concludes Morales. “And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.”
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws! of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total val! ue of $3 85 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequent! ly, it w ill take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormo! us". "Th ere is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the ! Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
_________________________________________________
— The whole world will rejoice when the Empire falls.
- Judah Ben-Hur (played by Charlton Heston), in 1959 classic movie "Ben-Hur"
— Traditional rulers, institutions, and ways of life have crumbled under the fatal impact of American wealth and power but they have not been replaced by new institutions and new ways of life, nor has their breakdown ushered in an era of democracy and development.
- William F. Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: |
| NOVEMBER 3, 2006
2:45 PM
Mahdis Keshavarz, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000
Center for Constitutional Rights Argues to Court That Military Commissions Act is Unconstitutional
NEW YORK - November 3 - The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) joined attorneys in filing a brief yesterday in Al Odah v. United States of America, together with Boumediene v. Bush the two cases representing men held at Guantánamo Bay that have reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The briefs were the first written arguments to challenge the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in court and argue that either the retroactive suspension of the detainees' right of habeas corpus does not apply to pending cases, or that it is flatly unconstitutional. CCR represents Australian citizen David Hicks, one of the petitioners in Al Odah, as well as hundreds of other detainees at the island prison and coordinates their representation by hundreds of pro bono attorneys.
The brief states: "The Court should promptly affirm [the Lower Court's] denial of the Government's motion to dismiss these cases and, at long last, allow the district court to decide 'the merits of the petitioners' claims' as mandated by the Supreme Court" in CCR's landmark victory Rasul v. Bush. The brief goes on to argue that the Suspension Clause of the Constitution-which states that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless. cases of rebellion or invasion. require it"- bars Congress from suspending that right, except under very particular circumstances.
"This is the first opportunity we have had to challenge the constitutionality of the MCA in court," said CCR senior attorney Barbara Olshansky, "and the Constitution is quite explicit on this point: No rebellion, no invasion, no suspension. It's that simple. We at CCR are confident that the court will find in favor of our clients, and in favor of the Constitution."
The government must now file a response to the brief, which is due by November 13. The written briefs will then be followed by oral arguments, on a date to be determined by the court. Until the court issues its decision, all pending habeas corpus cases will not move forward.
CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the hundreds of men detained at Guantánamo Bay have the right to their day in court. President Bush and the Congress have done their best to delay justice for these men; now the courts must insure that justice is not denied." | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
