Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating
any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of
his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all
totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the
federal
government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a
wide
swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people
without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency
influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to sup****t the rapid development of
new
programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid
contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to
build
detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The
government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands
of
railcars, some re****tedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to trans****t
detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is
part
of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the
removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to
taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new
programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention
facilities
in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps
millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of
the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the
power
to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the
president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural
disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in
which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the
extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before
the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of
anyone
who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist"
organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The
law
calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security
Presidential
Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event
of
what the do***ent vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the
president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone
is
empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of
government." This could include everything from canceling elections to
suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has
yet
to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a
new
way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the
House
by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and
re****t upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and
extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting
it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her
colleagues
from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of
terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to
combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins,
civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal
rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be
anti-abortion
protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists,
peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights sup****ters . the list goes on
and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism
Center
holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number
increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make
contingency
plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power
under
any cir***stances. The people must not allow the president to use the war
on
terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan
Hamburg,
a former congressman, is executive director.
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
Here's the 'plain and simple' definition: Everyone who doesn't sup****t
bush
is a terrorist. Anyone who doesn't sup****t bush's plans is also a
terrorist.
The plan is to rule by fear. Law no longer prevails since the Attorney
General Michal Mukasey can't even define what the law is. The one before
him, Alberto Gonzales, made a joke out of the whole system. The 'law' has
been perverted to the point where it's boundries are no longer definable.
Fear, Ignorance, and Racism are the ruling giants now. The only weapon
capable of defeating them is the Constitution. Unfortunately, no warrior
is
stepping forward to weild it.
|
