Signpost 3 -- Enemy Combatants and Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents

It's another Friday, and time to show what I could come up with on the next item in my "Fourteen Signposts to Slavery" series.  Here's a quick re-cap so far --

Signpost 1 -- Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen. -- CHECK

Signpost 2 -- Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.  -- NOPE (though many publicly-opposed efforts have been made to restrict gun ownership)

Now, on to today's item of interest --

Signpost 3 --Detention of individuals without judicial process.

Habeas corpus, or the right to petition against unlawful imprisonment, has been a part of American law since its very inception.  The Founding Fathers understood that unless individuals who were imprisoned had the ability to protest that their detention was wrongful, a government could potentially destroy the liberty of the people and enslave whomever it wanted.  Clearly, this was the exact type of thing the authors of the Constitution sought to avoid.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  

(Article 1, Section 9, U.S. Constitution)

Further, Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights specifies that "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . ."

With these safeguards in place, a government would be more likely to remain in its proper place as a servant to the people, not vice versa.

With the law on habeas corpus, a stipulation was made that during extenuating circumstances of rebellion and invasion, individuals taken prisoner might temporarily be stripped of this right if the government was too strapped to handle due process at that time.  

Indeed, during the Civil War President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for a period because of insurrection in Maryland and the mid-West.  Once the war was over, prisoners were dealt with and the privilege of habeas corpus was again extended to the citizenry at large.

Habeas corpus was suspended for some Ku Klux Klan members in the 1870's in some part of South Carolina apparently due to their interference in Reconstruction efforts. It was also suspended in Hawaii from 1942-44 in the aftermath of WWII, though not without opposition from some Americans.

Fast forward a few years and you'll find that President Clinton signed a law into effect, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America", in which prisoners were given a 1-year statute of limitation in which to petition any wrongful imprisonment and federal judges were given limitations on granting relief to petitioners.  This new legislation was proposed after the Oklahoma City bombing, and was subsequently criticized as not only ineffective against preventing terrorism, but eroding rights granted in the Constitution.

In fact, Congress had rejected some of the proposals that were eventually passed in 1996 as part of this Act when they had been put on the table by Reagan and Bush Sr. in earlier years.  Specifically, Congress had opposed laws enacting "guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or deportation, the ban on supporting lawful activities of groups labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the empowerment of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist organizations, without judicial or congressional review." (1)

After the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress was much more willing to comply.

Skipping ahead to 2001, we have another tragic event blamed on terrorism that leads to an even greater restriction of the rights of individuals taken prisoner and presumed to be terrorists.  On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which stated:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Further, "using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: 'Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism^' which allowed 'individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals', where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term 'detainees' to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as 'illegal enemy combatants'." (2)


After the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, the individuals it detained were held under this military order, going against the Geneva Convention's guidelines on the treatment of prisoners of war. 

Thousands were rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay without recourse for an indefinite period, where some of them were subject to treatment that sounds pretty cruel and unusual to me!

Further, under the USA PATRIOT Act, a non-citizen charged with an immigration violation became subject to mandatory detention and was "ineligible for release until he [was] removed, or until the Attorney General determines that he should no longer be certified as a terrorist." (3)

Many left-wing politicians and citizens quickly became disgusted with the U.S. policies of detention and torture, while right-wingers claimed it was all necessary and for our good.

President Obama to the Rescue?

In 2008, Obama campaigned for president with the promise that he would close the Guantanamo Bay prison within his first year of office.  Once elected, he made efforts to do so and came across some road blocks.

The most recent development with the closing of Gitmo is the proposition that prisoners be transferred to a prison Thomson, IL.  Obama himself admitted that some prisoners would probably still be detained indefinitely without trial.  Chris Anders of the ACLU argues that "There is a right way and a wrong way to close Guantanamo, and the current Thomson plan is the wrong way. Indefinite detention without charge or trial and military commission-related detention shouldn’t simply be moved from Guantanamo to Illinois.Opening Thomson without prohibiting the worst of Guantanamo policies from being transported there would be an enormous step backwards." (4)



Lastly, to fill out the landscape of indefinite detention without trial in America or enacted by the American government, let’s turn out attention to the new McCain-Lieberman bill introduced this March.  Apparently designed to prevent any future underwear bombers from harrassing the American populace, this bill would allow the government to detain anyone suspected of terrorism without charge, without trial, and without any Miranda Rights.

McCain defended the bill claiming that "deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians are an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery.  We must recognize the difference." (5)

_____________________________________________________

WHEW.

Here are my thoughts.  The only way our government could get away with trampling on the right to protest wrongful imprisonment and have due process of law if imprisoned, would be to package it in some attractive way.  Both Democrat and Republican leaders have participated (sure glad I voted for neither Obama nor McCain).

The claim that these measures will protect America from terrorist attacks has proven a sufficient justification for many in government and amongst the populace. 


I am not convinced that the risk of terrorist attacks outweighs the risk of growing governmental tyranny.

Signpost 3 --Detention of individuals without judicial process.  CHECK

What do you think?


References:
(1) http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/PAplndbefore.html 
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#2001_Presidential_military_order
(3) http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/USAPAanalyze.html#IIC2
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html
(5) http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=2AF60F3A-05DC-CDF6-7DC9-6501A995C17C

I Want to Live in a Free America, Not an America Where Everything is Free

“Democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence” as people grow more “accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others.”

             – Polybius, Greek historian

Today our world experienced another cataclysmic event – an earthquake of an 8.8 magnitude struck in Chile, prompting evacuations in nations with coasts on the Pacific Ocean.  Thankfully, the casualties in Chile are no where near what we saw in Haiti, though it is certain that countless numbers were negatively impacted by this quake.

It is right and good that people come to the aid of those who were injured, left homeless, and suffering loss – something that most of us, no matter our political persuasion, can agree on!

Back in the homeland, a consensus on all policies and plans are not so easy to come by as Democrats and Republicans are fighting tooth and nail over how to reform America’s healthcare system. 

How can we in America allow people to suffer with sickness and not help?  How can we let an old, toothless woman in Buffalo, New York be compelled to wear the dentures of her dead sister?  In America??  While the people of France and Canada, Japan and Sweden take care of their people, how can any compassionate American citizen be against the healthcare reforms proposed by President Obama and Democrats in Congress?

Compelling indeed are the many arguments for government to take over the healthcare industry in America. 

But I am amazed at not how many people oppose the takeover, but how many people support it!

“By supporting an endless number of ‘good’ causes, free society gradually becomes collectivist and tyrannical.” (1)

Yesterday I was engaged in a study that would behoove all of us as American citizens to participate in – I was reading the Constitution. 

This is the document upon which our entire nation was built.  Though our society is not without its inequities and our history not without some serious bumps in the road, we can credit the U.S. Constitution with giving us 200+ years of freedom and prosperity of unparalleled scope. 

How did it do this?  It was designed that way!  The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the most basic freedoms of the people, to empower them in the pursuit of life and liberty, and to keep them far from tyranny’s grasp.

Freedom of speech, of press, of religion, of assembly, the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances, the right to a speedy, public trial by jury if accused of a crime, the right to bear arms, the right to one’s own property, the right of protection from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to vote regardless of gender or race.  These are the rights granted by our Constitution.  If you don’t believe me, please read it for yourself!

Ironically, we hear politicians and citizens crying out to meet the peoples’ rights to all kinds of things not outlined in the Constitution. 

“Today, politicians promise the right to high quality education, the right to free or affordable health care and housing, and many more so-called rights.  These are not genuine rights.  They are benefits at the expense of others.”  (2)

At the very same time, many of these same politicians and citizens trample on some of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution!!  What is going on here? 

When a newly-elected president is sworn in, he is required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to swear to defend the Constitution. 

I don’t have the time or space to research and list every infraction against the Constitution by every past and present American President.  But besides the atrocious proposed Federal government takeover of healthcare, which would go against Amendment 10 of the Constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”), a few notable Constitutional violations come to mind --

How about a whole slew of measures passed by President George W. Bush in the Patriot Act?  No trial and potentially indefinite detention for those accused of terrorism.  Really??  Are we going to follow in the Soviet Union’s footsteps and imprison all "enemies of the state"? 

Did you know that search and seizure of Americans and businesses of America is becoming more common?  And spying on the medical records, financial records, web-surfing habits, library records, and blogs and Facebook status updates of ordinary American citizens is now commonplace? 

If you believe you have nothing to hide because you aren’t doing anything wrong and you trust your government won’t abuse these powers, I invite you to take a look at history to see that there is a long and prestigious track record of governments abusing the powers granted them.

How about all the measures proposed over the years for monitoring and curtailing the citizens’ rights to firearms?  This is blatantly un-Constitutional. 

And our tax regulations make it a habit to seize an increasingly sizeable chunk of American citizens’ hard-earned money and redistribute it to the poor through programs. 

Yes, all of these measures can be made to sound like good ideas, but the truth is that each of them is chipping away at the very foundation America was built on and making us more vulnerable to tyranny.

The more the people depend on their government to provide for them, the more vulnerable they are to tyranny.  And as the saying goes, when the people fear the government, tyranny reigns.  When the government fears the people, there is liberty!

I want to live in a free America.  I understand that there are risks and responsibilities associated with freedom, but I embrace these hazards because I believe that freedom is worth it! 

I like the Constitution, and I like that it set up a system that made tyranny difficult or next-to-impossible. 

Please read the Constitution and vote out all politicians whose actions prove they don’t uphold this document.  Only vote for those with a track record of adherence to this history-making document that makes a society of liberty and true power to the people most likely to persist.  Make those in power fear their accountability to the people!

And for goodness' sake, please use your brain when reading or watching the news!  But that is a topic for a whole other day . . . 

(1) The Path to Tyranny:  A History of Free Society’s Descent Into Tyranny, Michael Newton, p. 6
(2) The Path to Tyranny:  A History of Free Society’s Descent Into Tyranny, Michael Newton, p. 8