[Peace-discuss] "...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends..."

[LAURIE]

While I concur with Mr. Hornberger's observations, analysis, and conclusions
for the most part, I think he overstates the current actual situation,
although not the potential situation. The decision is from only one federal
circuit court of appeals; other circuit courts of appeals can issue
contradictory rulings.  Until the Supreme Court rules, the decision only
really holds for that circuit.  Now it is true that, for the most part, the
prosecution gets to pick and choose what district to try many of these
cases, despite any mechanical procedures set up to minimize the cherry
picking of courts and judges, and that this gives the Executive branch an
advantage is selecting what circuit a case will be brought up for a hearing
in the civilian courts with respect to charges such as these which are said
to fall clearly within any defined Circuit.  So the Federal Government could
indeed choose to bring all such cases before the courts in this particular
Circuit so as to avoid the liberal judges and courts (similar to what other
liberal administrations have done in the past with respect to the selection
of liberal courts and judges to hear cases involving liberal issues when
they can get away with it).  Moreover, it could go to the Supreme Court,
which could given its current and potential future makeup, rule in favor of
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and even extend it.  Thus, I
agree it presents a potential future danger which needs to be protected
against.  However, since the rules against the cherry picking of judges and
courts by prosecutors has been so ineffective as to allow the prosecutors to
charge suspects of crimes that do not take place in a clearly defined
district or circuit to shop for courts and judges favorable to their side, I
have to wonder how evective any procedures instituted to control executive
power will be even if the Supreme court were to overturn the circuit court
of appeals ruling.

Obviously, what the author describes as possible has always been possible
under the U.S. sedition laws and the like (look at the Japanese-Americans on
the West Coast or the earlier actions taken against immigrants at the turn
of the century and before).  Some of those laws, which established grounds
for setting up internment camps within the U.S. just like the Concenetration
Camps in Nazi Germany, still are on the books.

Secondly, I think either he has misstated himself or Carl has made an error
in transcribing the article with respect to the following statement: "For
the sheep, the fear of being among those rounded up will be worse than the
fear of "the terrorists."  Isn't it the reverse?  "For sheep, the fear of
'the terrorists' will be worse than the 'fear of being rounded up'."  This
is especially true of the sheep who are not actually being rounded up at the
time.  I think we can take the behavior of people in Nazi Germany - even the
Jews - as a good illustration of this phenomenon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:10 PM
> To: peace-discuss
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] "...whenever any form of government becomes
> destructive of these ends..."
> 
> 	The Fourth Circuit's Ominous Decision
> 	By Jacob G. Hornberger, FFF
> 
> Led by conservative judges, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has
> just
> affirmed the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" doctrine, a
> doctrine that
> allows President Bush and his military forces to designate anyone
> anywhere in
> the world as an "enemy combatant" in the so-called war on terrorism and
> treat
> him accordingly. While the case that the Court was deciding involved a
> foreigner, Ali al-Marri, the Court's reasoning applies to American
> citizens as well.
> 
> Al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar. He was under federal court indictment
> for
> terrorist-related charges and actually preparing for trial under the
> principles
> of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. federal court
> system.
> Before the trial was permitted to begin, U.S. officials yanked Al-Marri
> out of
> the federal court system and sent him into the clutches of the U.S.
> military.
> The government took the position that ever since 9/11 it had the power
> to treat
> suspected terrorists in one of two alternative ways - as a federal
> court
> defendant or as an "enemy combatant." While they initially chose the
> first route
> with al-Marri, they ended up employing the second route.
> 
> The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has now upheld the government's
> position and
> the government's actions. That means that the president and the
> Pentagon now
> wield the same power wielded by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes
> around
> the world: the power to sweep into neighborhoods across the land and
> arbitrarily
> take citizens into custody as "enemy combatants." After all, don't
> forget the
> government's argument, an argument that has now been upheld by a
> federal court
> of appeals: In the global war on terror, the entire United States is
> part of the
> battlefield.
> 
> Do people taken into custody by the military have any recourse? Yes,
> but it is
> extremely limited. They still have the right to file a petition for
> writ of
> habeas corpus to challenge the government's designation of them as
> "enemy
> combatants." But as soon as the government provides some evidence
> indicating
> that the detainee is a terrorist, then the government's detention of
> him will be
> upheld and the courts will sustain the detention. And don't forget the
> government's argument: that in "war" the courts should defer to the
> wartime
> decisions of the commander in chief and his military.
> 
> Prior to 9/11, terrorism had always been considered a criminal offense.
> In fact,
> it's still on the federal statute books as a criminal offense. That's
> why, for
> example, terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef (the 1993 WTC terrorist),
> Timothy
> McVeigh (the Oklahoma City terrorist), and Zacharias Moussaoui (the
> 9/11
> terrorist) were prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in federal
> district court.
> 
> After 9/11, the president unilaterally adopted a new order of things
> here in the
> United States, without even the semblance of a constitutional
> amendment. From
> that point on, the president and the Pentagon would have the option of
> treating
> suspected terrorists, including Americans, as "enemy combatants" and
> treating
> them accordingly. Soon afterward, they established their torture and
> sex abuse
> camp for suspected terrorists in Cuba and later took an American
> citizen, Jose
> Padilla, into military custody as an "enemy combatant."
> 
> Will Americans be concerned about the al-Marri decision? Not likely.
> Most of
> them will continue their sheep-like or ostrich-like way of life. The
> reason is
> that since the president and the military aren't arresting Americans en
> masse
> and carting them into concentration centers, the standard attitude is,
> "Why worry?"
> 
> But if there is another big terrorist attack, then it is a virtual
> certainty
> that Americans will get to witness the full exercise of the power that
> has now
> been sustained by the Fourth Circuit. Orders for round-ups will be
> issued, and
> the troops will loyally and obediently follow those orders. In the
> midst of the
> fear and panic generated by such an attack, American sheep, both male
> and
> female, will not object to the round-ups of hundreds or thousands of
> American
> "terrorists" and "terrorist sympathizers." For the sheep, the fear of
> being
> among those rounded up will be worse than the fear of "the terrorists."
> 
> How will the Pentagon treat American "enemy combatants" in such a
> "crisis"?
> Well, just ask John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, two Americans who
> were
> tortured after being arrested. The fact is that U.S. personnel, both in
> the CIA
> and the military, view American "enemy combatants" in a much worse
> light than
> foreign "enemy combatants" because of the traitor aspect.
> 
> Given the decision in al-Marri, the government's torture and sex abuse
> policy
> and its rendition policy now become more important for Americans. There
> is
> absolutely no reason that U.S. officials cannot treat American "enemy
> combatants" the same way they treat foreign enemy combatants. And
> everyone knows
> by now what they do to people they think are foreign "enemy
> combatants."
> 
> Isn't it amazing how the embrace of an imperial foreign policy can
> wreak such
> major changes in life at home? The president and his military go abroad
> and poke
> hornet's nests. The hornets finally strike back. The retaliation
> enables the
> president and the military to revolutionize America's judicial system
> through
> the unilateral assumption of omnipotent power over the citizenry by the
> president and the military. The courts uphold the assumption of power
> on the
> ground that the U.S. is now at "war" with the hornets, which attacked
> in the
> first place because the president and the military were poking their
> nests.
> 
> When will ordinary Americans finally start fighting back? When will
> they finally
> begin defending their own fundamental rights and liberties? When will
> they
> conquer their fears of both the government and "the terrorists"? When
> will they
> stop falling for the lies and deceptions? When will they finally begin
> behaving
> like men and women and not like sheep?
> 
> Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
> Foundation.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss