The United Nations Wants to Take Your Gun!
OR TRY www.jbs.org
Posted on 08/23/2002 11:14:18 AM PDT by Pay now bill Clinton
Toward an American Gulag?
Hello and welcome to Review of the News Online. I’m William Norman Grigg, Senior Editor for The New American magazine – an affiliated publication of The John Birch Society.
Vladimir Lenin, founder of the world’s first totalitarian state, summarized his theory of government in these words: "The scientific concept of dictatorship is nothing else than this – power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." Saddam Hussein once remarked: "Law consists of two lines above my signature." George W. Bush has yet to digest his ruling philosophy into a single memorable utterance. However, regarding summary detention of American citizens, the president is claiming powers similar to those exercised by Lenin, Saddam, and similar tyrants.
The Justice Department, with the active support of the president and Attorney General John Ashcroft, has refused to provide a federal judge with information justifying the open-ended detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi. The administration claims that because Hamdi has been designated an "enemy combatant," the government can detain him for as long as it wishes. During an August 13th hearing, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described the Bush administration’s claim as "the most interesting precedent … in Anglo-American jurisprudence since the days of the Star Chamber."
Named after a star-shaped ceiling design in a chamber at London’s Westminster Palace, the Star Chamber courts were originally used to settle trade and property disputes on behalf of English kings. However, the Star Chamber became notorious during the reigns of Kings James I and his son, Charles, when it became an instrument of royal privilege. Enemies of the English Crown were designated as "outlaws," which originally meant that they enjoyed none of the procedural protections usually recognized in courts of law.
Such people were taken into the Star Chamber, a "court" controlled by the king; their trials were held in secret, no right of appeal was granted, and punishment was swift and brutal – imprisonment in the Tower of London, torture, or execution.
In similar fashion, Hamdi was designated an "enemy combatant" by a minor Pentagon apparatchik named Michael H. Mobbs, who wrote an official "declaration" that Hamdi could be detained, without trial or judicial oversight. During the August 14th hearing, Judge Doumar reflected: "I do think that due process requires something other than a basic assertion by someone named Mobbs that they have looked at some papers and therefore they have determined he should be held incommunicado. Just think of the impact of that. Is this what we’re fighting for?"
Admittedly, Hamdi appears to be a singularly unsympathetic figure. Born in Louisiana, Hamdi is a Saudi national who was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and is currently being held at a U.S. Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the Mobbs declaration, Hamdi went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. He was captured when his Taliban unit surrendered to forces from the Northern Alliance, the Russian and Iranian-backed radicals whom the Bush administration supported in the post-September 11th military campaign. While this is not exactly a winning resume, it falls well short of being a credible criminal indictment. But the Bush administration contends that Mobbs’ account of Hamdi’s activities "is sufficient to dispose of this case as a matter of law," and that no trial is necessary.
It is important to recognize that Hamdi – according to the Pentagon’s own account – played no role in planning or carrying out the Black Tuesday terrorist assault. No evidence has been presented that he had prior knowledge of that attack, or that he even expressed support for that atrocity after it was committed. While Hamdi freely offered his services to the admittedly despicable Taliban junta, he posed no threat to our nation or to any American citizen.
This sharply distinguishes Hamdi’s case from that of the World War II-era Nazi saboteurs who were captured in this country, detained by the military, tried before a military tribunal, and executed. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case, known as Ex Parte Quirin, acknowledged that "enemy combatants" captured by the U.S. military during a declared war can be tried in secret by military tribunals. But no existing statutes or legal precedents justify the Bush administration’s actions in detaining Hamdi.
The same is true in the case of Jose Padilla, suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" here in the United States. Padilla is an ex-con who gravitated to radical Islam while in prison. Like Hamdi and John Walker Lindh, Padilla migrated to Afghanistan, where he adhered to the Taliban junta. Last June, after Padilla was captured at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, he was designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush and taken into military custody in Virginia.
An August 13th Associated Press report observed that Padilla "is probably a `small fish’ with no ties to al-Qaeda cell members in the United States…. The FBI’s investigation has produced no evidence that Jose Padilla had begun preparations for an attack and little reason to believe he had any support from al-Qaeda to direct such a plot…." No formal charges have been made against Padilla – and the Bush administration insists that none are necessary, since the presidential designation that Padilla is an "enemy combatant" is sufficient to justify his open-ended detention.
If the Bush administration has its way, the Hamdi and Padilla cases will lay the foundation for a revolution in our system of criminal justice. A "senior Bush administration official," commenting about the Hamdi case, told the August 8th Wall Street Journal, "There’s a different legal regime we’re developing" in the so-called war on terrorism. The Journal observes that the new regime contemplated by the administration would blend "the once-separate realms of civilian law and the law of war. Criminal law determines guilt and assigns punishment for past wrongdoing, but the law of war gives governments vast powers to prevent possible harm by imprisoning and interrogating enemy soldiers."
The Bush administration maintains that in dealing with captured enemy combatants, the judicial branch must defer to the military’s judgment. But the administration’s "new regime" has been inspired by reversals in the courtroom, rather than on the battlefield. Notes the Journal: "stung by the courtroom circus that … [accused terrorist] Zacarias Moussaoui, has created, and the aggressive defense marshaled by John Walker Lindh before he plea-bargained his way out of a possible life sentence, the Bush administration is preparing to expand its policy of indefinitely detaining in U.S. military jails people it designates as `enemy combatants’…. Such prisoners -- whether Americans or foreigners captured in the U.S. – aren’t afforded the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants, or even the limited rights allowed in military tribunals. The White House is considering creating a high-level committee to decide which prisoners should be denied access to federal courts."
Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School puts the administration’s "revolution" in its properly ominous context: "That sort of thing used to happen in the Soviet Union and may still happen today in Iran and Iraq, but it’s not the sort of thing that should happen in the United States…. If the government succeeds in this case, if its arguments are upheld it would mean that anybody, anytime could be labeled an enemy combatant by the attorney general and arrested in the middle of the night and locked away in a military brig."
Attorney General Ashcroft added another critical detail to this dystopian blueprint by proposing the creation of detention camps for those designated "enemy combatants." Notes Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University: "The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft’s small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases [those of Hamdi and Padilla] … to see whether their vision could become a reality."
Although Professor Turley has hardly earned a reputation as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, it is impossible to argue with his conclusion: "Whereas al-Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft [and, it must be added, the president who appointed him] has become a clear and present threat to our liberties…. Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks…. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending."
Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week.
This has been Review of the News Online from The John Birch Society. For more information about what you can do to preserve our freedoms, call: 1-800-JBS-USA1
Roughly 12% of Americans are convicted felons of whom less than 5% were incarcerated. Keep in mind the definition of a felony is a serious crime that traditionally could be punished by death.
And these number are from good economic times with falling crime rates. I imagine as the young male demographic picks back up and the economy sours, we could see up to 20% of the population be convicted of felonies. Then what sort of liberties will people be willing to trade for the illusion of security?
If all that is needed is for a president to issue an edict, a wave of the hand and all rights vanish, we (the citizens of the United States) are in serious trouble.
The goal of any terrorist is to effect change within the target society. Some people have looked at 09/11 and stated that Laden didn't accomplish anything more than the unification of the American people against him and his cause. I would submit that Laden was far more successful than he ever imagined on a number of counts.
Eastern block tactics in our airports
Face recognition cameras in every public place
Monitors by roadways to document movements
Who do these actions affect? The Taliban? Al Qaeda? No, they affect the law-abiding citizens of the United States. After all, that's what each of us are supposed to be, assumed innocent.
In effect every time you walk through a public place in the future you will submit yourself to a lineup. And that's just the beginning. Right now you are "supposedly" only subjected to a face comparison to know criminals. In the foreseeable future these same cameras will log your every movements from the moment you step foot out of your home to the moment you return.
This means that if you attend a Freeper meeting it's logged. If you decide to protest Bill Clinton it's logged. If you decide to show up on the Mall in support of Right to Life, it's logged. I would submit that such logs will become commonplace and will provide some pretty interesting reading for administrations that despise conservatives. Enemy of the State, who's to say?
Is this the nation you envisioned that you'd spend your remaining years in?
The one aspect of the right that I always considered to be the most suspect, was it's possible implementation of police powers that were so lop-sided that they'd infringe on Constitutional Rights. I had envisioned this occurring from the platform of the Supreme Court. If too many died in the wool conservative judges were appointed, I surmised they might error all too often on the side of the police, thereby encroaching on citizen's rights. I did not expect an open assault on Constitutional rights. And this is what I think Bush has ushered in, although for seemingly good reasons.
This is a problem on the face of it. But when liberals get through tinkering with the mechanisms, heaven help us. I don't think it takes a brain trust to consider the implications of Hillary in the driver's seat with these new tools. I fear that there may come a day when we damn the day Bush made it to office. I don't say this with malice or dislike for the man. I just happen to believe that some of his actions are insidiously ominous.
Is this the nation you envisioned that you'd spend your remaining years in?
Great post.
Unfortunately, there are many that don't seem to see the danger in this legislation.
No, this is not the nation I was raised to love and cherish. Nor the one I hoped my granddaughter would grow up in.
Tin foil alert!
I've just finished reading "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen, and the similarities between Bush and Nixon are stunning. (Keep in mind this book was written in 1976).
Both campaigned as conservatives, but governed as proponents of big governments. Both advanced an agenda that would have been difficult for a democrat president to advance. Both massively increased the size of the federal government.
Keep in mind that certain acts of political expression under the new CFR bill are "felonies".
In many states, it's a "felony" to carry a firearm on your preson.
This list could go on and on all day, but the point is that the traditonal definition of "felony" has been expanded to cover just about any crime.
Uh, no. But it looks like you would be more comfortable arguing with a straw man who believes that sort of thing.
I'm just pointing out that 1 in 8 Americans are now felons and that the percentage is likely to increase. Furthermore most felons are no longer incarcerated. I have an acquaintance who is a felon because his dog jumped the fence and chased a deer while he was away on vacation.
Law enforcement is a business, like any other business it seeks to expand its base of "customers".
Let me ask you something: If Ashcroft and Bush were really evil dictators, wouldn't a disarmed poulace be their basic strategy? I've never heard of a dictator who defends the right of an individual to defend himself with a firearm. Have you? If so, please name names. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.