noworldsystem.com


New Gitmo Video: Child Detainee Cries During Interrogation

New Gitmo Video: Child Detainee Cries During Interrogation

Current
July 15, 2008

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dQ1gwXIX05g

For the first time ever, a videotaped interrogation of a Guantanamo Bay terror suspect has been released to the public.

Omar Khadr was captured as a 15-year-old after being accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan in 2002. Now his lawyers have released excerpts of a video showing their client being questioned by Canadian officials at Guantanamo Bay prison. The video is said to provide insight into the effects prolonged interrogation and detention had on Khadr.

The video was shot in 2003 over four days of interviews and is seven hours long in total. It was originally marked “Secret/No Foreign”.

 

Keeping America Safe: Prosecuting Children as Terrorists

Common Dreams
June 21, 2008

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the rest of the warmongers and terror-pimps in the White House would have us believe that Omar Khadr is a monster. Khadr is the 21-year-old Canadian who is facing one of the first show-trials at Guantanamo.

But let’s just step back a minute and consider Mr. Khadr’s case.

The son of an alleged Islamic fundamentalist, Khadr was sent to one of those fundamentalist madrassa schools in Pakistan back when he was 14. From there, he went to Afghanistan, to join with the Taliban in fighting against the remnant warlord backers of the Soviet Union, which had attempted to run Afghanistan as a vassal state.

Then came 9-11 and the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan. Young Khadr suddenly found himself fighting against the world’s most powerful military.

In 2002, after the Taliban government had fallen, Khadr was still out in the hills with the forces of resistance. The Taliban government was gone, but the war was not over. In fact it’s still not over, with the Taliban resurgent in much of Afghanistan.

In this situation, with some 20,000 US and European troops battling across Afghanistan, Khadr, by then at the ripe age of 15, found himself with a group of five older fighters in a compound up in the hills. Some US Special Forces came on the location, and, peeking through cracks in the door, saw the group, armed with AK rifles. They called on the men to surrender, but the men allegedly refused.

At that point the brave Americans called in an air strike, and clobbered the building. After that softening up, they went inside to pick up the pieces.

Someone at that point, and US military prosecutors claim it was the wounded Khadr, tossed a grenade while lying injured on the ground. The grenade killed Special Forces Sergeant Christopher Speer. Speer’s comrades opened fire, with three of them hitting Khadr.

When they went to check on him, the critically injured, yet miraculously still living Khadr reportedly pleaded, “Shoot me!” Reportedly, some of Sgt. Speer’s buddies were ready to do just that. Apparently the “clicking” of injured captives by American forces (a war crime) is not uncommon, and even has its own slang word. But a medic with the group interceded and stopped the battlefield execution, and took action to save Khadr’s life.

Khadr was eventually shipped off to Guantanamo, at the age of 15, in violation of a 2002 protocol signed by the US which extended the protection of the Geneva Conventions against imprisoning child soldiers from the prior “under 15″ standard to “under 18.” No matter, “bad guy” Khadr would be one of at least 2500 children that the US has admitted to incarcerating in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere as “enemy combatants.”

Today, Khadr is 21. He has spent the second half of his teenage years confined in a prison camp on the naval base at Guantanamo.

This is what Bush and Cheney are really referring to when they assure us that they are holding “the worst of the worst” on the island of Cuba.

They are keeping us safe from 15-year-old boys.

And what, exactly, is Omar Khadr’s “crime”?

As far as I can tell, if he did toss that grenade (and there is testimony from American witnesses that the thrower may have been another man, who was killed in the resulting US barrage of fire), Khadr was simply demonstrating extraordinary bravery of the kind that would earn a silver star, at least, had it been a US soldier or marine doing the same thing under the same circumstances. Consider: he and his comrades-in-arms, battling in defense of their religion and, in some cases, their nation, were bombarded from the air. They were then approached by armed US troops-the very ones who had called in the air strike. This was a battle, and it was not over yet. For all Khadr knew, those US soldiers were going to kill them all. And in any event, Khadr and his fellow fighters had a right to defend themselves to the death to prevent capture. Sure it’s unfortunate that Sgt. Speer was killed, but that’s what happens in wars.

Still, a fighter killing another fighter during warfare is not the act of a “terrorist.” It may be brutal and it may be tragic, but it is the act of a soldier. That soldier, if captured, is not a criminal, but a POW. Moreover, if he is a child, the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent protocol mentioned above, require that he be treated not as a POW but as a victim of war.

Bush and Cheney don’t want to admit that the people fighting US forces in Afghanistan are legitimate soldiers, entitled to protection under the rules of war. They want us to believe that anyone who takes up a gun in defense of their homeland or of the homeland of their allies, and fights against the US military forces that are spread all over the globe like Roman Legions of old, are “terrorists,” deserving of whatever fate we hand them, by whatever rules we want to gin up.

But it’s worth remembering that this particular “terrorist,” at the time of his “crime,” was simply a scared and badly-wounded 15-year-old kid who had the balls to toss a grenade at well-armed soldiers on a search-and-destroy mission.

In an interesting twist that further highlights the absurdity of calling a 15-year-old a hardened terrorist, Speer’s widow, Tabitha, and another soldier who lost an eye in the grenade blast, sued not Khadr, but his father’s estate, claiming that his “failure to control his son” had been the proximate cause of their losses. A federal district judge, in February 2006, awarded the two $102.6 million in damages. In other words, the court concluded Khadr wasn’t responsible for his actions; his father was. And yet the US is prosecuting Omar Khadr for being a hardened terrorist at an age when he was too young to drive!

The Bush/Cheney administration’s incarceration and prosecution of this boy was a war crime. His continued incarceration and the attempt to prosecute him as a terrorist today makes a mockery of America’s motto: Home of the Brave.

We should all be ashamed.

Canadian PM brushes off evidence of Guantanamo abuse
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/..c;_ylt=ApU100eyhTE7E6X04pjztsIWIr0F

ACLU: U.S. blocking payments to Guantanamo attorneys
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/43453.html

Gitmo Suspect Wants Classified Docs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200..ydW6ZuxuSioZmJznfRg.3QA

Iraqis Tortured By UK Military Settle For $6M
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080..7dWGmjBETqpCRueqUl5bbBAF

 



Why you should NEVER talk to police

Why you should NEVER talk to police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

 



44% Favor Torture Of Terrorist Suspects

44% Favor Torture Of Terrorist Suspects

Raw Story
June 24, 2008

A new poll of citizens’ attitudes about torture in 19 nations finds Americans among the most accepting of the practice. Although a slight majority say torture should be universally prohibited, 44 percent think torture of terrorist suspects should be allowed, and more than one in 10 think torture should generally be allowed.

Read Full Article Here

Keeping America Safe: Prosecuting Children as Terrorists
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/21/9787/

’Soldiers routinely abuse detainees’
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite..owFull&cid=1213794299228

 



2-star General Accuses WH of War Crimes

2-star General Accuses WH of War Crimes

Washington Post
June 18, 2008

The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.” He called the abuse “systemic and illegal.” And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.

Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation.

The new report, he writes, “tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual’s lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

“The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted –both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

“In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . .

“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Pamela Hess of the Associated Press has more on the report, which resulted from “the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far” and “found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders.”

Read Full Article Here

 

At Least 25 Detainees Murdered In U.S. Custody

Think Progress
June 20, 2008

http://youtube.com/watch?v=izhfKIONGMY

At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:

NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?

WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.

A February 2006 Human Rights First report found that although hundreds of people in U.S. custody had died and eight people were tortured to death, only 12 deaths had “resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official.”

Read Full Article Here

’If detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong’
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/n..etainee_dies_youre_doing_i.html

Does McCain Support Amending The Constitution To Overturn The Supreme Court’s Habeas Decision?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/200608_b_mccain.htm

Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41394.html

John Yoo’s ongoing falsehoods in service of limitless government power
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/yoo/index.html

 



Gingrich: Habeas Corpus ruling ‘could cost us a city’
Gingrich: Habeas Corpus ruling ‘could cost us a city’

Glenn Greenwald
Salon
June 17, 2008

Even when set against all the reckless fear-mongering being spewed in response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling — which merely held that our Government can’t abolish the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus and must provide minimum due process to people before locking them in cages for life — this comment by Newt Gingrich on Face the Nation this weekend is in a class all by itself:

On the other hand, I will say, the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the president and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . . . Worse than Dred Scott, worse than–because–for this following reason: . . .

This court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city. And the debate ought to be over whether or not you’re prepared to risk losing an American city on behalf of five lawyers . . . .

We better not allow people we seek to imprison for life to have access to a court — or require our Government to show evidence before it encages people for decades — otherwise . . . we’ll “lose a city.”

Read Full Article Here

 

Bush: Critics Of US Torture Chambers ’Slandering America’

Gingrich: Bush Should’ve Allowed More Terror Attacks
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/06/02/gingrich-bu..-more-terror-attacks/

U.S. Abuse Of Detainees Common In Afghanistan
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38775.html

McCain: Habeas Corpus a Privilege not a Right
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/140608_a_mccain.htm

McCain To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/15/kristol-court-guantanamo/

Waterboarding, slapping, sensory deprivation – all on US tactics list
http://news.scotsman.com/world/..-deprivation-.4194720.jp

Pentagon Looked Into Torture Early
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy..8/06/16/AR2008061602779_pf.html

Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/06/15/supreme-court-restores-habeas-corpus/

 



Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus

Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus

Glenn Greenwald
Salon
June 13, 2008

In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”

As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being “enemy combatants” have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.

In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the “Combatant Status Review Tribunals” process (“CSRT”) offered to Guantanamo detainees — mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures — which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them — “fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review.” Those grave deficiencies in the CSRT process mean that “there is considerable risk of error” in the tribunals’ conclusions.

The Court’s ruling was grounded in its recognition that the guarantee of habeas corpus was so central to the Founding that it was one of the few individual rights included in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was enacted. As the Court put it: “the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom.” The Court noted that freedom from arbitrary or baseless imprisonment was one of the core rights established by the 13th Century Magna Carta, and it is the writ of habeas corpus which is the means for enforcing that right. Once habeas corpus is abolished — as the Military Commissions Act sought to do — then we return to the pre-Magna Carta days where the Government is free to imprison people with no recourse.

Read Full Article Here

 



Chaplin: As long as dictators die, liberty will never perish

Chaplin: As long as dictators die, liberty will never perish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Eg8F3rap4

 



Hillary Clinton refuses to sign the Freedom Pledge

Clinton refuses to sign the Freedom Pledge, which demands that the future president give up the power to torture, go to war, spy on Americans,etc.

The Political Inquirer
November 2, 2007

Does anyone remember last week when Hillary Clinton went against her appearance as a power-grabber and said she would give up powers as president? Today in the New York Times, Bruce Fein, the Chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, said that Hillary refuses to sign the pledge.

What does the American Freedom pledge do? Well, here’s the letter:

Re “Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers” (news article, Oct. 24): The American Freedom Agenda, an organization of conservatives founded last March 20 to restore checks and balances and protections against government abuses, requested all presidential aspirants, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to sign an American Freedom Pledge.

They were asked to renounce the following powers if elected: torture; presidential signing statements; indefinite detentions of American citizens as enemy combatants; military commissions that combine judge, jury and prosecutor; spying on American citizens in contravention of federal statutes on the president’s say-so alone; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing suspected terrorists abroad; executive privilege to shield the executive branch from Congressional oversight; prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act for exposing national security abuses; listing organizations as terrorist groups based on secret evidence; suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the conflict with international terrorism; and invoking the state secrets privilege to deny victims of constitutional wrongdoing any judicial remedy. Senator Clinton has balked at signing the pledge, as have all other candidates except Representative Ron Paul.

Clinton Rebuts Accusations of Secrecy
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/…dems.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

‘Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm’: Why war with Iran is likely
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846

Dem underdogs open debate with salvos against Hillary
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/De..debate_with_salvos_1030.html

Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary
http://www.alternet.org/story/65869

Hillary Watch

 



A Case for Repealing NAFTA and Blocking the NAU

A Case for Repealing NAFTA and Blocking the NAU
A merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada enabled through NAFTA and called the North American Union is arguably the greatest current threat to our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution. This video presents many of the reasons why the American people must take action. (2007, 36 min.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5336528565623360235&hl=en

What is the ‘North American Union’?

 



Feds Train Clergy To “Quell Dissent”

Feds Train Clergy To “Quell Dissent”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCw8QRGjU6E

Economic Collapse As Precursor To Open Plan For Martial Law?
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/160807_economic_collapse.htm

Feds Train Clergy To “Quell Dissent” During Martial Law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/160807_quell_dissent.htm

 



Patriot Act Used to Search for Evidence in Cockfighting Case
August 19, 2007, 1:39 pm
Filed under: 5th Amendment, FBI, Patriot Act

Patriot Act Used to Search for Evidence in Cockfighting Case

J.J. Stambaugh
Knoxville News Sentinel
August 18, 2007

ust after midnight on May 13, 2004, a small team of FBI agents crept into the legendary Del Rio Cockfighting Pit in Cocke County.

The illegal gambling arena was closed, and agents were able to copy a computer hard drive before slipping away. They didn’t notify the property’s then-owner, Michael Maynard of Hot Springs, N.C., of the search for another three months.

Acting under the authority of the Patriot Act, the agents had obtained a search warrant that allowed them to clandestinely enter the property, search for evidence and not tell anyone about it until the government or a judge was ready to let the owners know they’d been there.

Originally touted as a tool in the struggle against terrorism, the Patriot Act now was being used in the hills of East Tennessee as part of a shadowy war that had been going on for decades, a struggle that pitted the federal government against a homespun Appalachian culture that had churned out generation after generation of proud outlaws.

The use of delayed-notice search warrants, which also are called “sneak-and-peek” warrants, is very rare, according to the most recent figures from the federal government.

As of 2005 — the most recent year for which data is available — the U.S. Department of Justice reported to Congress that less than 0.2 percent of all search warrants involved requests to delay notification.

Such warrants weren’t a new tool that was created by the Patriot Act, according to the Justice Department. The ability to conduct such searches had been upheld by the courts for many years, but the 2001 Patriot Act codified how they are to be used and, according to critics, greatly expanded the conditions under which they can be sought.

To Joe Baker, an attorney who represents alleged Del Rio pit employee Gerald David Allen II, the use of the Patriot Act in domestic investigations is problematic because it was touted as a tool to fight international terrorism.

While Baker said “it would be inappropriate to comment” specifically on his client’s case, he said the use of Patriot Act provisions in cases with no ties to terrorism is questionable.

“When the Patriot Act was enacted, it was done to protect us from the devastation and destruction of terrorism, and I think the lawmakers who passed the law at the time would certainly rethink their votes now, knowing that this powerful tool is being used to investigate nonviolent, small-time criminal offenses,” Baker said.

U.S. Attorney Russ Dedrick, who oversees federal prosecutions in East Tennessee, declined to comment for this story because of pending criminal cases.

The Del Rio search was part of the “Rose Thorn” probe, a massive investigation into public corruption and organized crime in Cocke County.

Based on what federal authorities had heard by the time of the search, the stakes could hardly have been higher, according to court records. Then-Sheriff D.C. Ramsey and several relatives allegedly were milking the Del Rio pit and other illegal gambling operations for cash. The FBI also was looking into drug smuggling and auto theft rings.

When FBI Special Agent Thomas Farrow sought the warrant, he cited the dangers that prompt disclosure might pose to those who were secretly cooperating with federal authorities as well as to the investigation as a whole. One witness, for instance, allegedly had been told their house might be dynamited if they kept asking questions.

But the use of such warrants poses thorny issues about privacy and the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been critical both of the use of sneak-and-peek warrants and how the federal law was changed in 2001.

“This is one of the few provisions of the Patriot Act that was sneaked into the Patriot Act in the middle of the night so that no one knew it was there,” said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant for the ACLU’s Washington, D.C., Legislative Office. “It was passed without everyone knowing about it.”

Prior to the Patriot Act, she said, federal courts had held that agents could conduct secret searches and defer notifying the targets for short periods of time in very limited circumstances, such as when someone’s life might be in danger.

“But this broadens it to include (the risk of) interference with an investigation, and this creates a sort of catch-all for law enforcement when it’s inconvenient for them to follow the rules,” she said.

She also said federal authorities aren’t required to release information on how many of the searches are done each year, although in 2005 the government confirmed that only 12 percent of them were related to terrorism.

“The rest are mostly drug cases,” she said. “They don’t even purport that this is a terrorism tool.”

A spokesman for the Justice Department’s National Security Division said he couldn’t discuss particulars of the Del Rio search but did explain the department’s stance on delayed-notification warrants.

Federal authorities believe the section of the Patriot Act dealing with such searches helped strengthen a valuable tool, he said.

“Delayed-notification search warrants are a long-existing crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography,” said spokesman Dean Boyd.

Federal authorities still must convince a federal judge of the necessity of such a search, and judges must periodically review the case to ensure that keeping the warrant secret is required.

“The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand,” he said. “In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.”

 



Kucinich: Exec. Order on Lebanon Undermines Peace
August 5, 2007, 2:00 pm
Filed under: 5th Amendment, Dennis Kucinich, Executive Order, False Flag, Lebanon, Syria

Kucinich: Executive Order on Lebanon Undermines The Middle-East Peace Process

Common Dreams
August 3, 2007

Fbiiraqisbein_mn

WASHINGTON – AUGUST 3 – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called the Administration’s latest Middle East policy reckless and dangerous and said it would further hurt the United States’ standing in the region and the world.

Yesterday, President Bush issued an Executive Order, announcing the United States faced an ‘Unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy’ and will freeze the property and interests of people deemed by the Administration to be undermining Lebanon’s democratic government.

“The French are working in Lebanon to try to construct a national unity government. Syria is on record as supporting the French initiative. The Bush Administration is trying to block National Unity and continue with its strategy to destabilize the region by targeting Syria and Iran, instead of seeking diplomatic resolution. The Administration is using the same rhetoric and political posturing that led to the unjustified war against Iraq. Our nation cannot afford this dangerous and aggressive foreign policy. The Administration’s posturing is putting the United States on a path of escalation with both Syria and Iran,” Kucinich said.

“If the Administration continues these policies which undermine the sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon, the United States risks more violence in the Middle East, further isolation from the international community, and the continued sacrifice of our pressing domestic needs. Instead of seeking to generate more turmoil, President Bush needs to commit U.S. diplomats to multiparty negotiations in the Middle East with no preconditions to achieve lasting peace in the region.”

Congressman Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, visited Lebanon last summer in the wake of Israel’s bombing of South Lebanon. Their mission included traveling around the war-torn country where they met with government leaders and citizens in Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Palestine in the hopes of generating support for peace.

 



Bush Abolishes Fourth Amendment

Bush Abolishes Fourth Amendment

Rogue Government
August 2, 2007

George W. Bush has continued his efforts to destroy the United States Constitution and transform the office of the President into a dictatorship. Today, George W. Bush has issued a new executive order similar to a July 17th, 2007 executive order that allowed the government to potentially seize the property of anybody who they determined without due process was undermining the Iraqi war and reconstruction effort. The language in that executive order was so entirely broad in scope that the executive order even applied to war protesters and political dissidents who might be indirectly undermining the Iraqi war reconstruction effort. This new executive order is similar in nature and uses broad language to allow the government to seize the property of anybody who they believe is attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions. This executive order essentially makes both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments null and void.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions

The first part of the executive order states that Bush is declaring a national emergency to deal with people who might be undermining Lebanon’s government or democratic institutions. Below is the first part of the executive order.

I GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, determine that the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon’s legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions, to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation, to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty contribute to political and economic instability in that country and the region and constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Bush has already issued a directive stating that he will effectively be a dictator in the case of a broadly defined catastrophic emergency, so the language in this executive order stating that he is declaring a national emergency is quite disturbing. It is ridiculous that he would declare a national emergency for a situation pertaining to a country on the other side of the world like Lebanon. How does Lebanon have anything to do with our national security that would justify declaring a national emergency to deal with a potential break down in the rule of law in Lebanon? This is especially true considering the war on terror and the threat of Al-Qaeda is now a proven fraud. These statements in this executive order by Bush are clearly insane.

The executive order continues.

I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any overseas branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(A) to have taken, or to pose a significant risk of taking, actions, including acts of violence, that have the purpose or effect of undermining Lebanon’s democratic processes or institutions, contributing to the breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon, supporting the reassertion of Syrian control or otherwise contributing to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or infringing upon or undermining Lebanese sovereignty;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, such actions, including acts of violence, or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to be a spouse or dependent child of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to be owned or controlled by, or acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section include but are not limited to (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

The text listed above is similar to the language used in the July 17th, 2007 executive order. Much of this new executive order is no different in the fact that due process is not even mentioned which the Fifth Amendment guarantees before an individual’s property is seized. This could include seizing the property of war protesters, political dissidents and anybody else who the government can easily identify as indirectly aiding the undermining of Lebanon’s government and their so called democratic institutions through the far reaching scope of the language.

Below is the full text of the Fifth Amendment which specifically states that a person’s property cannot be taken without due process.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

One of the most disturbing parts of the executive order comes in Section 4 where Bush actually makes a statement regarding people who might have a constitutional presence in the United States. Below is the section.

Sec. 4. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that, for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

What is so horrible about this part of the executive order is that Bush states that the individual’s Constitutional rights are null and void because he claim’s that the ability to transfer funds or assets instantaneously would make the executive order ineffectual. He states there doesn’t need to be prior notice of a listing or determination made by the government to justify why they took somebody’s property. This effectively gives Bush the ability to take property without providing justification and without a warrant. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which requires a warrant and probable cause before property is seized.

Below is the full text of the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This executive order does not reference anything about the government obtaining a warrant or having probable cause. If the government dictates that an individual is undermining the government of Lebanon or its so called democratic institutions than they can confiscate the individual’s property.

This new executive order is horrible and gives the executive branch of the government more unconstitutional powers. Bush essentially abolished the Fifth Amendment with the July 17th, 2007 executive order and now he has essentially abolished the Fourth Amendment in this new executive order. George W. Bush is clearly hell bent on destroying the Constitution through unconstitutional executive orders and directives. Bush is trying to legislate through the executive branch to dismantle the Constitution and give the President the authority of a dictator. He needs to be impeached and put on trial for all sorts of criminality. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution yet he has done everything to destroy it.

 



Bush’s Martial Law Plan So Shocking, Congress Can’t See It


Bush’s Martial Law Plan Is So Shocking, Even Congress Can’t See It
Executive über alles as member of Homeland Security Committee barred from viewing post-terror attack provisions

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 23, 2007

President Bush’s post-terror attack martial law plan is so shocking that even sitting members of Congress and Homeland Security officials are barred from viewing it, another example of executive über alles and a chilling portent of what is to come as constant reminders of the inevitability of terror attacks reverberate.

Congressman Peter DeFazio (D – OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House’s plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn’t even give an excuse as to why he was barred.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian on Friday.

“We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,” DeFazio says. “I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.”

“Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,” DeFazio concluded.

The article also quotes Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who told the paper he “cannot think of one good reason” to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

“I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,” Ornstein said.

The only plausible reason DeFazio was barred access to the documents is that the plans for a post-terror attack continuity of government scenario are so abhorrent that to reveal their true nature would cause a public outcry and lead to a major repeal of what is contained in the documents.


Congressman Peter DeFazio (D – OR)

What we already about Bush’s recent spate of executive orders, and in particular PDD 51, is bad enough – the provisions outline preparations for the implementation of open martial law in the event of a declared national emergency.

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

It is important to understand that, although these powers have been on the books for previous presidents, Bush is the first to openly brag of the fact that he will utilize them and officially become the supreme emperor of the United States in the aftermath of a catastrophe that the government itself has said will happen on innumerable occasions.

According to columnist and author Jerome Corsi, the power grab assures that “The president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.”

Also in May, it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named “The Day After,” which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Last year we also exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The documents that Congressman DeFazio was blocked from seeing likely interlock with both these programs and detail the overarching agenda to effectively nullify what’s left of the U.S. Constitution and firmly ensconce George W. Bush as a supreme dictator.

Only by putting enough pressure on the media and in turn the White House to be transparent about what the secret martial law provisions are can we lead an effort to repeal them before the next terror attack, whether real or manufactured, takes place.

Related News:

Total Hypocrisy Of New Bush Executive Order
http://infowars.net/articles/july2007/230707ExecOrder.htm

Congressman Denied Access To Federal Post-Terror Attack Plans
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/o….058910.xml&coll=7

Bush To Congress We Can’t Be Charged
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_to_Congress_You_cant_0720.html

Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=3127

Non Executive Entity Cheney To Assert Executive Privilege
Government agency says Bush overreaches on executive privilege
Bush Won’t Supply Subpoenaed Documents
White House Stonewalling May Force Congress to Charge President with Criminal Offenses
Washington Democrat Adds Voice to Cheney Impeachment Drive
Dems Call White House Out on Subpoenas
Bush White House Refuses to Answer to Subpoenas
Cheney’s Office Nearly Defunded By House
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Cheney Claims VP is ‘An Important Part’ Of Executive Branch
White House/Cheney Subpoenaed
Subpoenas will be issued if the White House does not comply
CNN: Cheney No Longer Part of the Executive Branch?
Cheney Backs Off Claim That He’s “Fourth Branch of Government”
Dodd Tells Crowd in Rochester Impeaching Cheney Won’t Help
Cheney and Bush Claim Dictator Powers
Cheney role as power broker in spotlight again
NBC: Has Dick Cheney Gone Too Far?
President Bush Claims He’s Exempt from Security Oversight too
Cheney Declares VP Not Part of Executive Branch
Cheney Exempted His Office From Executive Order Protecting Classified Information
ABC News: Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don’t Apply to Him
Cheney Blasted For Declaring Himself Autonomous
Cheney Defiant on Classified Material
Hitler 1938, Cheney 2007?
George Bush’s Power Grab: Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Jerome Corsi on C-SPAN: Bush Dictator Powers
Bush Re-Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power
Ron Paul: U.S. Close to Dictatorship



Bush To Congress We Can’t Be Charged

Bush To Congress We Can’t Be Charged

Raw Story
July 20, 2007

A senior Bush Administration official unveiled a new strategy in Friday’s Washington Post — anonymously — to combat Democrats in Congress who are clamoring to file contempt charges against officials who refuse to talk about the firings of nine US prosecutors.

In sum, this strategy amounts to, “once we say no, we can’t be charged.”

Ironically, President Bush’s new legal argument hinges on whether one of his own US prosecutors can file charges against his staff.

According to the Post, “Administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.”

“A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case,” a senior official told the Post, which granted the official anonymity because ‘he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.’ “And a U.S. attorney wouldn’t be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen.”

Under law, a contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to Washington, D.C. US attorney, who then brings the charge to a grand jury.

“It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys,” the anonymous Bush official added.

George Mason University professor of public policy Mark J. Rozell called the administration’s stance “astonishing” in the article.

“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell told the reporter. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

The White House did not inform Democrats of the plan, which the Post called a “bold new assertion of executive authority.”

Reached for comment, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told the paper it was “an outrageous abuse of executive privilege” and said: “The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law.”

Congressman Denied Access To Federal Post-Terror Attack Plans

Jeff Kosseff
The Oregonian
July 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — Oregonians called Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio says.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn’t know who did it or why.

“We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,” DeFazio says. “I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.”

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: “We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive.”

Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he “cannot think of one good reason” to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

“I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House,” Ornstein said.

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

“Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,” DeFazio said.
Related News:

Non Executive Entity Cheney To Assert Executive Privilege
http://infowars.net/articles/july2007/190707Cheney.htm

Government agency says Bush overreaches on executive privilege
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gov…._0720.html

Bush Won’t Supply Subpoenaed Documents
White House Stonewalling May Force Congress to Charge President with Criminal Offenses
Washington Democrat Adds Voice to Cheney Impeachment Drive
Dems Call White House Out on Subpoenas

Bush White House Refuses to Answer to Subpoenas
Cheney’s Office Nearly Defunded By House
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Cheney Claims VP is ‘An Important Part’ Of Executive Branch
White House/Cheney Subpoenaed
Subpoenas will be issued if the White House does not comply
CNN: Cheney No Longer Part of the Executive Branch?
Cheney Backs Off Claim That He’s “Fourth Branch of Government”
Dodd Tells Crowd in Rochester Impeaching Cheney Won’t Help
Cheney and Bush Claim Dictator Powers
Cheney role as power broker in spotlight again
NBC: Has Dick Cheney Gone Too Far?
President Bush Claims He’s Exempt from Security Oversight too
Cheney Declares VP Not Part of Executive Branch
Cheney Exempted His Office From Executive Order Protecting Classified Information
ABC News: Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don’t Apply to Him
Cheney Blasted For Declaring Himself Autonomous
Cheney Defiant on Classified Material
Hitler 1938, Cheney 2007?
George Bush’s Power Grab: Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Jerome Corsi on C-SPAN: Bush Dictator Powers
Bush Re-Authorizes Martial Law Provisions
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power
Ron Paul: U.S. Close to Dictatorship




Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

Bush Abolishes Fifth Amendment

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
July 19, 2007

George W. Bush who has already declared himself a dictator in the case of a national emergency has now issued an executive order that effectively destroys the Fifth Amendment.

A few days ago, Bush signed a new executive order in which he uses broad language to claim that he has the power to seize the property of any person who undermines efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. The language in the executive order is broadly defined and does not specifically identify a specific group of individuals that the order applies to. It opens up the possibility of anti-war protesters and other political dissidents having their property confiscated for simply speaking out against the war.

Below is section 1 of the order. Click here for the full text of Bush’s order.

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

The language in this executive order is incredibly disturbing. Undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction as cited above is broadly defined and could mean anybody that speaks out against the Iraq war. Essentially, Bush is declaring that he can take people’s property without due process if the government determines that in some way a person is undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq. Bush fails to mention The Fifth Amendment or due process anywhere in the order.

Below is the full text of the Fifth Amendment. Clearly, this executive order is unconstitutional when you consider that the Fifth Amendment guarantees that a person will not be deprived of property without due process.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The web site Slashdot posted an article analyzing the Bush executive order and came to the exact same conclusion. Amazingly, the establishment press has spun the coverage of this Bush order as a way to strengthen the government’s ability to fight terrorism when the real story is that this order violates the Fifth Amendment and is entirely unconstitutional.

George W. Bush is a criminal who has violated his oath of office on countless occasions. This is yet another one of those occasions. He needs to be impeached and put on trial immediately.