See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Are You an 'Unlawful Combatant'?
Source:
Antiwar.com
URL Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9779
Published: Oct 2, 2006
Author: Justin Raimondo
Post Date: 2006-10-02 09:27:32 by Zoroaster
Ping List: *Justin Raimondo* Subscribe to *Justin Raimondo*
Keywords: None
Views: 248
Comments: 17
October 2, 2006 Are You an 'Unlawful Combatant'? Maybe so… by Justin Raimondo There has been a great deal of discussion about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [.pdf], recently passed by both houses of Congress, and most of it has to do with the provisions allowing torture of alien detainees, that is, of non-citizens apprehended in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, and their treatment at the hands of their American captors. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner, all Republicans, grandstanded for weeks over the torture provisions, then capitulated. Another "Republican maverick," Arlen Specter, zeroed in on the real issue, however, when he said the bill would set us back 800 years by repealing the habeas corpus protections against arbitrary arrest and jailings – and then went ahead and voted for it, anyway. Liberal opposition mainly centered around the morality – or, rather, immorality – of torture, but the debate largely ignored the ticking time-bomb at the heart of this legislation, scheduled to go off, perhaps, in tandem with some future crisis, e.g., another terrorist attack on American soil: the redefinition of the "unlawful combatant" concept that lays the foundations for this administration's reconstruction of the gulag. Here is the new, broadened definition, as enunciated in the legislation recently passed by the House: "The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means – (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) 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." It doesn't say "alien" or "terrorist," although it specifically includes members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It says "person" – any person, including American citizens. As Bruce Ackerman, professor of law at Yale and author of Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism, puts it: "Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Congress has now granted the president the powers of a dictator. The rest of the story of our slide into absolutism is merely a matter of filling in the details. Our rulers will naturally continue to pretend that we live in a normal democratic country, that the Constitution still means something, and that nothing essential has really changed – but, of course, everything has changed, as the post-9/11 War Party has relentlessly argued, and we had better get used to it. Because if you very vocally and aggressively refuse to get used to it, they can and perhaps one day will come for you. As an Arab friend of mine puts it when describing the routine operations of Middle Eastern police states, "You will never see the light." My Arab friend, a recent immigrant, lives in fear of arbitrary arrest, having been constantly exposed to the danger and possibility of it in his native land and during his travels through the Middle East, and it hasn't faded with his arrival in this country. He flinches every time he sees someone in uniform, glancing up fearfully as I open the door to a FedEx delivery guy, and tracks police cars out of the corner of his eye as they cruise down the street. He is forever posing hypothetical situations in which he becomes the victim of a policeman who confronts him – perhaps on grounds of looking "suspicious" – and the story invariably ends with his deportation. Or perhaps, he says, they will simply "take me" – and with this he simulates a cop grasping him by the neck – "and send me to Guantanamo. I will never see the light." This kind of fear is understandable to Americans only on a very abstract level. We, after all, have no experience with a police state – not in the sense of a systematic totalitarian approach to repression – of which the European and Third World nations have plenty. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for all his elaborate and extensive wartime apparatus of political repression and propaganda, never even came close to the police-state methods of his European cousins-once-removed in Moscow, Berlin, and Rome. And the comic-opera machinations of J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, while reprehensible, never approached the savage efficiency of the KGB – about the only efficient institution in Soviet society. The closest we came was in 1798, with the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which legalized the deportation of alien residents and criminalized criticism of the government, particularly the president. The Acts were, in effect, a Federalist coup d'etat, in which the neo-royalists grouped around the Federalist Party sought to ditch the Constitution and repeal the American revolution. The Federalist counter-revolution was carried out under the colors of "national security," of course, and in the shadow of war: as in the Bushian version, a fifth column of enemy aliens was a major target of the 1798 legislation. The Naturalization Act sought to limit support for the Jeffersonians by lengthening the residency requirements for immigrants: most new citizens of the youthful republic were instinctual Jeffersonians, drawn to the New World by the bright promise of liberty. The Alien Friends Act and the Alien Enemies Act, taken together, comprise a near-exact replica of the Military Commissions Act, mandating the seizure, detention, and deportation of male foreign nationals and resident aliens deemed hostile to the United States in wartime. The target: tens of thousands of French citizens residing in the U.S., who were unsympathetic to the Federalist cause. The real target of the coup leaders, however, wasn't a foreign-born fifth column, but a domestic one. The Sedition Act made it illegal for anyone to write, print, publish, or speak against the government in a manner deemed "false, scandalous, and malicious" and designed to hold the authorities in "contempt or disrepute." In wartime, argued the Federalists, presaging our own red-state fascists, it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government, and several prominent journalists critical of the Federalists were tried, and some convicted. Opposition to the Sedition Act did much to fuel the subsequent Republican victory in the congressional elections of 1800. I wonder if history will repeat itself, this time – or will we enter a timeline where the neo-Federalists finally succeed in their scheme to impose a dictatorship on American shores? There is, of course, no equivalent of the Sedition Act of 1798 in the Military Commissions Act: only the seed of one, cited above. It establishes the principle that an American citizen may be seized and locked up in a military prison, stripped of the protections traditionally afforded him by the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, there is the question of how it will be enforced, and certainly there are numerous political factors to consider: repression without some degree of popular support is a risky business, as the Soviets came to understand only after it was too late. The administration must take all this into account before acting. In the present legal and political atmosphere, however, it won't be long before this malignant seed sends its tendrils aboveground and blossoms into a full-grown and fearsome flower of evil. One has only to listen to the latest pronouncement from our Beloved Leader, out on the campaign trail, implying that the Democrats are dancing on the borderline between criticism and treason when they bring up the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Speaking to the Reserve Officers Association, he averred: "Some have selectively quoted from this document to make the case that by fighting the terrorists – by fighting them in Iraq – we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we're provoking them." Translation: A vote for the Democrats – or, rather, as the Great Decider would say, the "cut-and-run" Democrats – is a vote for al-Qaeda. Crude, and it remains to be seen how effective, yet this is not mere campaign rhetoric: Bush's equation of antiwar criticism with "the enemy's propaganda" is precisely the argument made by the radical ideologues who inhabit the fever swamps of organized neoconservatism. At their most feverish, the more excitable among them have theorized that the First Amendment is expendable when it comes to the "war on terrorism," and that speech that tends to "incite" violence in the form of terrorism can be legitimately curtailed. Certainly the Europeans – with recent legislation limiting speech in Britain, and "hate speech" laws endemic throughout the European Union – have made great strides along this road. In America, however, the new authoritarians have, until now, had a tougher row to hoe. During the 1940s, the Justice Department – obeying the president's command to go after antiwar dissenters – launched a sedition trial that initially sought to indict prominent politicians and activists associated with the America First movement, but the radicals in the administration were reined in after the legal difficulties became all too apparent. The Justice Department wound up going after a group of 30 or so mostly harmless cranks, charging them with initiating a Nazi "conspiracy of ideas." Among the indicted was Lawrence Dennis, the noted writer and intellectual. The trial was a farce from beginning to end. Under the Justice Department's legal theory, anyone who held views that in any way echoed or agreed with any aspect of Nazi ideology or pronouncements could be said to be engaged in "objectively" aiding the enemy. In this way, all the indicted individuals – many of whom had never laid eyes on their fellow "conspirators" – could be tied together, and then linked to an international network headquartered, naturally enough, in Berlin. These people had bought into "the enemy's propaganda" – and the Roosevelt administration was determined to jail them. In the end, however, the drama of the trial petered out and descended into parody. Dragging on for months on end, with testimony mainly consisting of government attorneys reading the defendant's propagandistic efforts aloud, the Great Sedition Trial of 1940, which started with plenty of fanfare from the administration's amen corner, soon became a laughingstock, and then – fatally – a bore. When the judge died of a heart attack several months into the trial, the administration thought better of it and pulled in its horns. One suspects, however, that this administration will not be so easily deterred. To begin with, they won't have to deal with a judge or bad publicity, because the "trial" will be conducted by a military tribunal, operating in secret. Secondly, the defendants will stand trial without benefit of constitutional protections normally afforded to all American citizens. I say "normally" because I am still living in the world before the passage of our modern-day Alien and Sedition Act, at least mentally. But it's a new world, now. The exact contours of this strange new world are vague, but they are fast coming into painfully clear focus. As the president equates criticism of the Iraq war with "enemy propaganda," and the neocon media blares away at the theme of "dissent = treason" – or, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, "they're not antiwar, they're on the other side" – it isn't hard to imagine that we have a few sedition trials in our future. My expectations are dire, although this could simply be my own subjective impression, a mood that will pass. I can't help feeling, however, a sense of gathering dread, attached not just to the Military Commissions Act but arising out of the political atmosphere surrounding its passage. I never could understand – in the sense of share – the fear of authority that emanates from my Arab friend every time he sees someone in uniform. Now, however, I am beginning to feel it myself – as we all will.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zoroaster (#0)
Mine said "Exceeds Expectations" on most things. But the boss did note that I need to work on recognizing sooner when to seek assistance.
; or (iii) a person who thinks Bush and/or Israel is full of shit. The Big government/Zio-nazis will be making a HUGE mistake when and if they start applying this to Americans to sqaush political dissent.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
Congress has now granted the president the powers of a dictator. Yes they have.
The President of the United States has always had the powers of a dictator. See the Post, More Blonde Jokes II and think about Excutive Orders, first one of which, as I detail in that post, was signed by George Washington. Second, you guys are forgetting something.... something hugely important when you discuss this type of thing, and, that is; WHERE DO YOU LIVE? Again, I detailed this in the post, More Blonde Jokes II: The sovereign 50 states of the Union of states. These states are foreign governments with respect to the United States. They are also referred to as "foreign countries" in 28 U.S.C. §297 and 26 CFR §1.911-2(h) and "foreign states" in 28 U.S.C. §1603. You live in a FOREIGN COUNTRY in respect to the United States. Do you get that?! And this is not my opinion; THIS IS FEDERAL LAW. Now, for purposes of jurisdiction and taxation, you are only RESIDENT in one of those foreign states, BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE HOW YOU ARE VIEWED ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW!
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Recent new reports say the constitutionally of the Detainee/Torture bill will be legally challenged. If so, it may be overturned, though the odds are not good with the two Bush appointess siting on the Supreme Court. It's quite possible the compromise deal was in place even before the bill was initially introduced on the Senate. Specter knew his "habeas corpus" amendment would not pass before he submitted it.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
He knew, however, that virtually all Democrats would vote for it, and thus give the Republicans a chance to run attack ads against them.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
Ummm, once again, this is the problem when you only have a little bit of info. Two new appointees to the so-called Supreme Court (it ain´t; it was established by Congress in 1789, BEFORE the Constitution was adopted; the judicial arm of the federal government WAS NEVER OPENED), both of whom are Catholics. This now makes 5 so-called Spreme Court Justices Catholic. Now, of course, I understand that this makes no difference..... unless you factor in; The Black Pope The Jesuits (headed by the Black Pope) Control of Masonry through the Illuminati as headed by the Black Pope The land for Washington, DC, largely came from a Jesuit group And finally, if you are really unaware of what this means, I suggest you do a study on the Inquisition, and the Jesuits.... well, on the Catholics in general for that matter and the Inquisition. Cause it matters. And then ask yourself, why would Bush appoint two Catholics to the Supreme Court? When you find the answer, you will be shocked! (a hint, study the Roman churhes support for Hitler, esp. in Croatia in WWII, and study Prescott Bush and his control of the New York bank which funded Hitler´s rise to power - must be a real amazing coincidence when powers continue working together.)
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
The Jesuits (headed by the Black Pope) Control of Masonry through the Illuminati as headed by the Black Pope The land for Washington, DC, largely came from a Jesuit group And finally, if you are really unaware of what this means, I suggest you do a study on the Inquisition, and the Jesuits.... well, on the Catholics in general for that matter and the Inquisition. Cause it matters. For simplicities sake, I just call it satanic/evil.
Their being catholic alone would have nothing to do with any dark allegiences. Unless you're suggesting that catholics in general are so allied. But that would mean sunday catholic services would be quite open about what's going on, and they aren't. Bush's appointees were selected because they support police state powers, and he'd have as soon selected tribal witch doctors if he knew he would both support trashing the constituiton and would get confirmed. It's that simple.
I also do not buy into a "sinister" Catholic angle.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
Are you suggesting that all Catholics, by your definition, were supportive of the Inquisition? Or, were most of them afraid for their families with what was going on? Bush´s appointees were selected because they are members of one or more of the secret Catholic sects that we hear nothing about, such as the Knights of Columbus. And have proven themselves in full support of the actions that further the disigns of the Vatican. I would suggest you read the book, Vatican Assassins, and do a study of the Black Pope.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
It does not matter what you buy into; what matters is history. I suggest you do a study of the book, Vatian Assasssins, look into the Black Pope, and when you have completed that, study the Inquistion. I think you will find it quite informative.
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Are you suggesting that all Catholics, by your definition, were supportive of the Inquisition? Or, were most of them afraid for their families with what was going on? ???? Uh, no. To the contrary, I was suggesting the exact opposite. Though as a footnote, it would be unjust to blame the inquisition on "catholics" per se, since that occurred before Martin Luther's time, and consequently any denominational split from the one and only church of the time (not counting the orthodox catholic, I suppose, and I must confess I don't remember when the OC and RC church split occurred). But given the timing, you'd have to blame all present day protestent christians for the inquistion as much as present day roman catholics, if you plan to blame any of them at all.
Yeah...several .223 and .45 caliber mistakes ;-)..and a few other assorted calibers for variety.
Combatant Status Review
There is more than one Institute. There is more than one Island. There is no outside world to which we can flee -- or if there is, it is just a bigger Institute, or a synthesis. The fact that all Institutes are prisons, and all Islands mostly lies, does nothing to reduce the danger of contamination.
#2. To: Zoroaster (#0)
"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means – (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) 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."
#3. To: Zoroaster (#0)
#4. To: Zoroaster (#0)
NWO bump
#5. To: Zoroaster, wbales, Tauzero, Neil McIver, lodwick, all (#0)
Congress has now granted the president the powers of a dictator.
#6. To: richard9151, wbales, Tauzero, Neil McIver, lodwick (#5)
#7. To: Zoroaster (#6)
Specter knew his "habeas corpus" amendment would not pass before he submitted it.
#8. To: Zoroaster, angle, christine, all (#6)
Recent new reports say the constitutionally of the Detainee/Torture bill will be legally challenged
#9. To: richard9151 (#8)
The Black Pope
#10. To: richard9151 (#8)
#11. To: Neil McIver, richard9151 (#10)
Their being catholic alone would have nothing to do with any dark allegiences. Unless you're suggesting that catholics in general are so allied. But that would mean sunday catholic services would be quite open about what's going on, and they aren't.
#12. To: Neil McIver (#10)
Their being catholic alone would have nothing to do with any dark allegiences.
#13. To: wbales (#11)
I also do not buy into a "sinister" Catholic angle.
#14. To: richard9151 (#12)
#15. To: wbales (#2)
he Big government/Zio-nazis will be making a HUGE mistake when and if they start applying this to Americans to sqaush political dissent.
***LEAP***
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and choking life.
-- Osama bin Laden
"A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William K Clifford
#16. To: Neil McIver, richard9151 (#14)
The Catholic Church (along with all of Christianity excepting the growing cult of Christians who have been brainwashed into worshipping Israel--heck though, the federal media and Hollywood even bash them) is a target--an enemy--of the "powers that be".
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#17. To: Neil McIver, BTP Holdings, RickyJ, lodwick, mehtable, angle, Ferret Mike, all (#14)
The inquisition that you are speaking of had nothing to do with the historical record of the Inquistion of the Jesuits. That is simply balderdash from the Roman church used to confuse the issue. The Jesuits were specifiaclly created to stop the Reformation, started by Martin Luther, and they killed many, many more than 10 million people in Europe in their efforts to do just that. http ://www.tacklingthetoughtopics.net/Eberhart/eberhart_jesuits.html "My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, is very particular and very horrible. Their restoration [i.e., the Jesuits’ reinstatement as an official order by Pope Pius VII in 1814] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, perfidy, despotism, death… I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of Loyola’s [i.e., the Jesuits, the "Company"]." John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States; Quote taken from a letter in 1816 to Thomas Jefferson) "The organization of the [Roman Catholic] Hierarchy is a complete military despotism, of which the Pope is the ostensible [i.e., apparent; seeming] head; but of which, the Black Pope [Ed. Note: The Superior General of the Jesuits], is the real head. The Black Pope is the head of the order of the Jesuits, and is called a General [i.e., the Superior General]. He not only has command of his own order, but directs and controls the general policy of the [Roman Catholic] Church. He [the Black Pope] is the power behind the throne, and is the real potential head of the Hierarchy. The whole machine is under the strictest rules of military discipline. The whole thought and will of this machine, to plan, propose and execute, is found in its head. There is no independence of thought, or of action, in its subordinate parts. Implicit and unquestioning obedience to the orders of superiors in authority, is the sworn duty of the priesthood of every grade…" Thomas M. Harris (U.S. Army Brigadier General; Author of the book Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln) "The Jesuits are a military organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms: and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses… The [Superior] General of the Jesuits insists on being master, sovereign, over the sovereign. Wherever the Jesuits are admitted they will be masters, cost what it may… Every act, every crime, however atrocious, is a meritorious work, if committed for the interest of the Society of the Jesuits, or by the order of the [Superior] General." Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821; Napoleon I, emperor of the French) "The Jesuits…are simply the Romish army for the earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff of Rome for emperor…that’s their ideal… It is simple lust of power, of filthy earthly gain, of domination – something like a universal serfdom with them [i.e., the Jesuits] as masters – that’s all they stand for. They don’t even believe in God perhaps." (1880) Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881; Russian novelist) "…the Council [of Trent] recommended that the Jesuits ‘should be given pride of place over members of other orders as preachers and professors’. It was at [the Council of] Trent that the Roman Catholic Church began marching to the beat of the Black Papacy [the Superior General of the Jesuits]." F. Tupper Saussy (Author of the book Rulers of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies) "…This ‘Directorium Inquisitorum’ was dedicated to Gregory XIII, the pope who bestowed upon Jesuits the right to deal in commerce and banking, and who also decreed that every papal legate should have a Jesuit advisor on his personal staff." F. Tupper Saussy "Indeed, for two centuries, all the French kings, from Henry III to Louis XV, would confess to Jesuits. All German emperors after the early seventeenth century would confess to Jesuits, too. Jesuits would take the confessions of all Dukes of Bavaria after 1579, most rulers of Poland and Portugal, the Spanish kings in the eighteenth century, and James II of England. The sacrament of confession kept Jesuit information channels loaded with vital state secrets. It also furnished the Society [of Jesus] an ideal vehicle for influencing political action." F. Tupper Saussy "The [British] East India Company was a major subsidizer of the Jesuit mission to Beijing [China]. The Jesuits, in turn, interceded with oriental monarchs to secure lucrative commercial favors for the company, including monopolies on tea, spices, saltpeter (for explosives), silks, and the world’s opium trade. Indeed…the [East India] Company appears to owe its very existence to the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuits]." F. Tupper Saussy "According to the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, in the 106th Congress there are 40 Jesuit alumni who graduated from 17 Jesuit institutions." F. Tupper Saussy "…the order of the Jesuits was created – the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery… they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power… There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. [Though] vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy.
Though as a footnote, it would be unjust to blame the inquisition on "catholics" per se, since that occurred before Martin Luther's time,
The Talmudic Khazar-Jew dream; Christians killing Muslims and Muslims killing Christians. What could be better than that? Well, Whites killing non-Whites and non-Whites killing Whites, of course.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest