From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
History Repeats Itself
Published on October 19, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In War on Terror
This week, President Bush signed the War Commissions Act. The GOP, in an attempt to reframe the election debates once again, heralded the signing as another nail in the coffin to democrats more so than any terrorist at home or abroad. Funny, I thought that the war was against terrorists, not democrats.

Dennis Hastert, amongst others, desperate to hold onto power, bragged that this bill would stop those pesky democrats from "coddling and pampering" terrorists. yeah, that's what's been happening.

Hastert, along with the rest of his desperate party, has seemed to have forgotten that the war is against terrorists, not democrats. But this bill is more against Americans than anything else. Democrats aren't interested in pampering terrorists any more than the republicans are interested in realizing the dramatic implications of what they have done in the spirit of holding absolute power.

A specific part of this act lists the definition of an "enemy combatant" as " 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.”

What does this mean? According to Constitutional Law proffessor Johnathan Turley, it means that you, I or any other American can be called a terrorist or enemy comatant at the president's whims. In other words, if he doesn't like you.

Turley: ... 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.
...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.


Some have argued that they could care less about "terrorist rights" to the point where they skew anyone who defends the basic principles of Habeas Corpus as someone who wats to "give MORE rights to terrorists." then go on to make all kinds of false, inflamatory accusations. None of which are true.

President Adams signed a declaration similair to this. The end result was a rounding up of journalists. President Grant issued his own suspension of Habeas to rid us of the KKK. That still hasn't happened, but again innocent people wre jailed and given no opportunity to defend their innocence until wiser heads prevailed and like Adams's power grab, was reversed.

It happened again when President Wilson insisted that the espionage Act was necessary. the end result was that public speakers we re jailed unjustly and with no opportunity to defend their innocence.

FDR also exceeded the constitution with executive order #9066. that act imprisoned any Japanese -American during world war II in concentration camp like settings for the crime of their ancestors coming to America. As General DeWitt said at the time to Congress, "“It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.” This was not only the biggest blunder on FDR's record, it was so bad that ronald reagan had to formally apologize to the Japanese people and goverment for the lives we had ruined.

In all these cases, all that ever happened were Americans being unjustly imprisoned for nothing more than speaking or writing about their country or for just being here. No crimes were committed, no enemies were stopped. The only people who were terrorized were the innocent americans being jailed.

Senator Patrick lehey wisely said this is "a sad day when the rubber-stamp Congress undercuts our freedoms,” and Senator Feingold added that “We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation‘s history.”

Indeed we will.

But in the past, either the Congress or the Courts have stepped in to save our precious rights. So, they will again, right? let's ask Mr 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".


But we don't torture, right?

"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."


You weren't the only one, i'm sure.

Some Americans think that to beat the terrorists that we have to become more like them. We've made that mistake before, like when some thought that to beat the Soviet Union, we had to be more like them. Or the japanese. Or the Germans. Or the Socialists. Or the Anarchists. Or the Immigrants. Or the British. Or the Aliens. etc, etc,,,,

In every case, despite some folks good intentions, they were always wrong. America wins when Americans stand up to tyranny and at the same time defends our freedoms and rights with equal, if not a greater vigor.

Is this hyperbole? Keith Olbermann, in his special comments yesterday, nailed it...

"We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"


I don't think so either Keith.















"

Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 20, 2006
It was a red herring Sean, not worth answering.


no, it's not. it is what was made legal the other day. you have really lost your habeas corpus rights under the constitution if you are declared an enemy combatant.

and goverments have never silenced people by throwing them in prison right?

tell that to nelson mandella
on Oct 20, 2006
At any time have I lead you to believe that I am a merely some partisan hack who relentlessly attacks one party while giving the other a get out of jail free card.


no, i'm not ready to charge ya with that. but you have taken some personal swipes at me that i feel are very undeserved. suggesting that i "celebrate US dead soldiers" was 100% out of line. and straight out of the conservative pundit handbooks.

i don't think you are a partisan hack by nature ted. but i do think you have a fear of republicans losing control of a house of congress and it is making you say things that are unfair and untrue.
on Oct 20, 2006

you can be declared an enemy combatant on far less. just for providing material support (like donating money or time to a cause that is deemed a terrorist money raiser).


if you are donating time and money to Al-Qaeda - you should be declared an enemy combatant and put far, far away. The fact that you WILL receive a JAG lawyer to present your case only underlines how reasonable the approach is.

I don’t see anything wrong with that. In fact, treason at the time of war is punishable by death in a good part of the world.


Some have argued that they could care less about "terrorist rights" to the point where they skew anyone who defends the basic principles of Habeas Corpus as someone who wats to "give MORE rights to terrorists." then go on to make all kinds of false, inflamatory accusations. None of which are true


Do you think terrorists get more rights with or without the latest bill? Do they truly deserve their day in court paid by the taxpayers?


a) you do know i'm not a democrat or a liberal, right?


I don’t know what your affiliations are and therefore said "you and democrats" specifically segregating the two.


In all these cases, all that ever happened were Americans being unjustly imprisoned for nothing more than speaking or writing about their country or for just being here. No crimes were committed, no enemies were stopped. The only people who were terrorized were the innocent americans being jailed.


You forgot Lincoln - it seems in 1860s it actually did do some good.


As for my questions being related to 3 other articles? - perhaps, but those very same questions are related to the subject you wrote of, as suspension of rights is one side of the story, - the other is why. It is not possible to have a result without cause. You would not interrogate or (as you put it torture) on a whim, you would do it to get the information, the information vital to your and your family’s survival. Have there been cases when individuals crossed the lines? Of course, there always are – yet whether you do it as a policy or not defines your moral position.

Becoming alike terrorists would be the downfall of a civilized nation, however, we should rid of illusions that because we treat someone fairly they will do the same. They didn’t, they do not, and they will not as the very nature of terrorism in its core is such that you push the buttons of deepest fears in people to ‘terrorize them’ into submission. If you uphold the moral values to the degree you are arguing for - you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.


..basically asking me if i am in support of everything the bush administration does, or am i an anarchist.what i don't support are knee jerk responses because of fear that erode our constitution


I don’t think this is a knee jerk reaction - it would have been if things like that would have had happened on sep 12th'01; it is 5 years later and a lot of people had some time to think things through. As for constitution - remember, it was created to protect the citizens of this country and it was created for the style and type of life at the time. Times change and must the constitution.

As for social services reference - your rights as a parent can easily be suspended by a social service worker that deems that you are not acting in the interest of the child (down to verbal arguments) . I consider that to be much more serious right violation then ensuring every terrorist gets his day in court. Even then, I understand that in a vast majority the parental rights do get suspended for a reason and overall it is a beneficial program. Sometimes, the broader definitions are necessary to ensure the absence of loopholes. Unfortunately the innocents will suffer one way or another.




on Oct 20, 2006
if you are donating time and money to Al-Qaeda - you should be declared an enemy combatant and put far, far away.


no, no,no,no..it's not that simple. there is no "al queda charities inc." or anything. you could be giving unknowingly. and those are merely 2 examples. there are many things that could be considered "material support." and that doesn't begin to explore things like being railroaded.

The fact that you WILL receive a JAG lawyer to present your case only underlines how reasonable the approach is.



Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

so, if you incriminate yourself, you can get a lawyer...after you agree to plead guilty...and that's only IF the ydecide to actually have a trial. remember, the right to a speedy trial, or any trial is gone.

also, while you may see your box of questions as related. the subject was habeas corpus rights being denied for american citizens. none of those questions have anything to do with that. they may be related, but not directly...and either way, still not the subject. perhaps we can discuss them sometime, but right now, i'd prefer concentrating on this.

we obviously disagree. and asking me "what if" questions aren't gonna sway me. and my answers would probably only piss you off. as far as the ss question, i was curious to what that was about, and you explained it nicely. i believe ss is a messed up system overdue for some reform, both in policy and practice. but again, that's another subject for another time.



on Oct 20, 2006
s far as the ss question, i was curious to what that was about, and you explained it nicely. i believe ss is a messed up system overdue for some reform, both in policy and practice. but again, that's another subject for another time. - Sean

Check out Gideon Macleish's blog for accounts of his experience with the CPS.

http://gideon-macleish.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=121811

http://gideon-macleish.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=121648

http://gideon-macleish.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=121459

This is an authoritarian system that could have been borne out of the War Commissions Act if it hadn't preceeded it. It derives private citizens appropriate inalienable rights for the 'good of all'. What hogwash!
on Oct 20, 2006
This is an authoritarian system that could have been borne out of the War Commissions Act if it hadn't preceeded it. It derives private citizens appropriate inalienable rights for the 'good of all'. What hogwash!


i'll check that out....at least it's obvious that i'm consistant, and it's about principle and not "politics." i can understand other points of view. but charging that i say things "just for politics" or other things that imply, suggest or directly acuse me of beig unprincipled or "ignorant" on the subject is annoying. i don't lose sleep over it, but it is annoying.
on Oct 20, 2006
God i need a new keyboard...this one is gettin worn out.
on Oct 20, 2006
I couldn't give a rat's ass about the rights of terrorists AFTER they've been found guilty of being terrorists. Torturing people into admitting they're terrorists is in itself an act of terrorism.
on Oct 20, 2006
Damn, I can't edit post #35.

Here's how it should read:

This is an authoritarian system that could have been borne out of the War Commissions Act if it hadn't preceeded it. It denies private citizens appropriate inalienable rights for the 'good of all'. What hogwash!
on Oct 20, 2006
In fact, treason at the time of war is punishable by death in a good part of the world.

In fact, according to the U.S. Constitution, Treason is a crime punishable by death at ANY time.

And funny, it's the only crime mentioned in the Consititution.

As for a person being declared an enemy combatant, it would be much easier to charge him with treason and make an example of him. Assuming, of course, that the person charged is a US citizen.
on Oct 20, 2006
I couldn't give a rat's ass about the rights of terrorists AFTER they've been found guilty of being terrorists.


i don't think you'll find much argument there.

Torturing people into admitting they're terrorists is in itself an act of terrorism.


agreed. and it makes us no better than the people we fight, at least in that respect.

there is no way in hell we can win this struggle if we sacrifice our ideals so easily to do it.
on Oct 20, 2006
As for a person being declared an enemy combatant, it would be much easier to charge him with treason and make an example of him. Assuming, of course, that the person charged is a US citizen.


but if the motive is to make the person "go away" the enemy combatant tag locks em up and throws away the key essentially.
on Oct 20, 2006
It denies private citizens appropriate inalienable rights for the 'good of all'. What hogwash!



lol...i read it wrong,,,but read it the way you intended. no correction necessary, i got it.
on Oct 21, 2006
This is an authoritarian system


very perceptive, deference.

if they're gonna be honest with us and themselves, those who proposed, enacted and are now defending this bit of tyranny will now admit they're really anti-republicans. if that's too clumsy a name for their political party--or not euphemistic enuff--you're right. authoritarian would also be accurate.
on Oct 21, 2006
totally and blatantly illegal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco


the fbi's war on the black panther party was both totally and blatantly illegal in that it was a deliberate effort by the government to eliminate a group of poliical dissidents. the only difference between koresh and jim jones is jones spent his cult's money on koolaid rather than acquiring illegal weapons with which to kill his his followers.

explain to me the difference between an enemy across the patomic then and terrorist cells in the US now?


the former had money with which to buy weapons and still have enuff left over for one of em to take a bus across the river--when they weren't being unknowingly tricked into making ambiguous statements by drugdealing fbi informants who drive ferarris and have a wallet fulla get outta jail free cards.
4 Pages1 2 3 4