Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

by **MASONIC PLOT** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:46 pm

<a href="http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1785/1/">www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1785/1/</a> Now that Congress, at the behest of Bush’s Schmittian fascist puppetmasters, has nullified habeas corpus, a legal tradition going back to the 12th century, we can concentrate on more important subjects, for instance “space tourist” Anousheh Ansari, who “offers uncommon insight into life on the International Space Station,” in particular “the hazards of washing hair in zero gravity,” according to the Australian. On the Google News page this morning, mention of the Detainee bill is nowhere to be found, whereas “Anna Nicole Smith’s exchange of vows with her lawyer Howard K. Stern on a boat near Nassau” is all the rage, as the Boston Globe would have it. Determinedly keyboarding in “detainee bill” on the Google News Search page returns mundane results, headed by a Los Angeles Times article declaring the “complex bill,” wrangled through “backroom negotiations,” will give Republicans “a rhetorical club to use against Democrats on terrorism” come the midterm elections. Trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and blotting out specific mention of the “Writ of Habeas Corpus,” enshrined in Article One, section nine, represents a long sought after coup de grâce, far worse than even Lincoln’s suspension on April 27, 1861, during the “Civil War,” more accurately described as a war waged by the federal government against states declaring their intent to secede from the “Union.” Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set-up military courts to persecute Copperheads, a faction of Democrats in the North who opposed Lincoln’s war against the South. As an example of what we can expect in the months ahead, consider Clement Vallandigham, leader of the Order of the Sons of Liberty, who denounced “King Lincoln” and demanded his dethronement. Vallandigham, an Ohio politician, was arrested as a violator of General Order No. 38, issued by General Ambrose E. Burnside, denied a writ of habeas corpus, convicted by a military tribunal of “uttering disloyal sentiments,” and sentenced to two years of internment in a military prison. In Ex parte Milligan, an important United States Supreme Court case involving civilians and military tribunals, the Court, according to Wikipedia, “decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war…. It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right’s enforcement.” Ex parte Milligan left unaddressed the president’s ability to suspend habeas corpus independently of Congress. Of course, all of that is now water under the bridge, as Congress, brimming with neocon sycophants, has slavishly deferred to King Bush, who has joked that it would be “easier” to rule as a dictator. Copperhead Democrats may have gone up against the Republican Lincoln—who we are told saved the republic and freed the slaves (in fact, Lincoln was a racist who wanted to ethnically cleanse Blacks from America; see Lerone Bennett, Jr.’s Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream)—but we should not expect such hardihood from the current crop of Democrats, many who indeed voted against Bush’s detainee bill but don’t have what it takes for sustained opposition to the neocon drive to dismember the Constitution. As presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton characterized it, Democrats who voted against the Schmittian detainee bill put “winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terror,” according to the New York Times. “Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat up for re-election who often breaks with his party, said he was willing to follow the lead of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lent the final legislation his strong endorsement,” apparently a slick move on Nelson’s part as John “Keating Five” McCain, friend of racketeers and Mafia dons (Joseph “Joe Bananas” Bonano, head of the New York Bonano crime family), is yet another presidential hopeful, a man with all the power and personality of a waterfront syndicate boss. If you go into a backroom with dogs, however, you’re going to come out with fleas. “Nelson, a Democratic senator from Tallahassee, supported a failed amendment that would have retained habeas corpus rights…. Nelson said he welcomes legal challenges to the bill,” according to the Gainesville Sun. In the meantime, thugs in black vans will be free to disappear Mr. Nelson’s relatives and friends, that is if King George deems them a threat to the war on terr’ism, that is to say the manufactured terrorist threat engineered to provide a pretext to invade small countries where putative haters of our freedoms reside. As the blogger Adam Ash explains, the term enemy combatant “means a legal non-person. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben likens them to the first humans to be so designated, under Roman law a few millennia ago. They didn’t call them ‘enemy combatants’ then, they called them ‘homo sacer’. This was a human being who could be killed by anyone, without the killer ever being guilty of homicide.” In fact, the idea of homo sacer was contrived as an excuse to impose justitium, or a state of exception, that is to say a suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of martial law. Agamben argues, “the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man prove to be completely unprotected at the very moment it is no longer possible to characterize them as rights of the citizens of a state.” Indeed, our civil liberties, enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and once considered our birthright, as Agamben would have it, may no longer be characterized thus, as they were systematically plowed under the manure of tyranny on the day after “everything changed,” including a liberal tradition (as in classic liberalism, as opposed to social liberalism) spanning back to the Magna Carta Libertatum, originally issued in 1215. Finally, as a side note, it should be remembered that the Levellers, a mid-17th century English political movement, believed the only traceable right of their day going back to the Magna Carta was due process. In our day, not even due process of law, as formerly spelled out in the Fifth Amendment, has survived the onslaught of the neocons, who are at base nothing more or less than followers of the Nazi crown jurist Carl Schmitt and his “Die Diktatur” philosophy. In America, the Reichspräsident rules supreme, and now shall issue lettres de cachet, arbitrary orders issued directly from the king, not subject to appeal. But never mind. If you’re feeling glum over the turn of events, you can always retreat to Cook Island with Survivor members of the Aitutaki tribe, even if as a passive spectator on the receiving end of the idiot tube. Source: Kurt Nimmo

by **MASONIC PLOT** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:48 pm

Torture Bill States Non-Allegiance To Bush Is Terrorism Legislation tolls the bell for the day America died, birth of the dictatorship By Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal. 7:25PM CST UPDATE After five hours of searching through the 80-plus page bill, Alex Jones, who won the 2004 Project Censored award for his analysis of Patriot Act 2, uncovered numerous other provisions and definitions that make the bill appear as almost a mirror image of Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act. In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation's legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush's authority on the torture of detainees. "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter." The Bush administration is preemptively overriding any challenge to the legislation by the Supreme Court. The definition of torture that the legislation cites is US code title 18 section 2340. This is a broad definition of torture and completely lacks the specific clarity of the Geneva Conventions. This definition allows the use of torture that is, "incidental to lawful sanctions." In alliance with the bill's blanket authority for President Bush to define the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit, this legislates the use of torture. The media has spun the bill as if it outlaws torture - it only outlaws torture for "enemy combatants," and in fact outlaws the retaliation of any military against the United States as "murder." Those deemed "enemy combatants" are not even allowed to fight back yet the government affords itself every power including the go-ahead to torture. Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following. - Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal's choosing. - Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building. - A change of the definition of "pillaging" which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants. In light of Greg Palast's recent hounding by Homeland Security, after they accused him of potentially giving terrorists key information about U.S. "critical infrastructure" when filming Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery (clear photos of which were publicly available on Google Maps), sub-section 27 of section 950v. should send chills down the spine of all investigative journalists and even news-gatherers. "Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct." Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition. "Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct." For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place? This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the "enemy combatant" designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, "A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted." Calling the bill "our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts," the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture. "Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses." Since with this bill, in the aggregate, Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the allegiance of American citizens is no longer to the flag or the freedoms for which it stands, but to Bush himself, the self-appointed dictator, and any diversion from that allegiance will mandate arrest, torture and conviction in a military tribunal under the terms of this bill. Similar to the UK's Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of "wrongfully aiding the enemy," could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack. That renders the entire 9/11 truth movement an aid to terrorist suspects and subject to military tribunal and torture. In addition, Bush's recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters. This should leave us with no doubt as to which parties are the target of the government's torture and intimidation campaign. Could protesting a war approved by the government and their bootlickers in Congress and the Senate be considered breaching an allegiance to the United States? Could campaigning against the bombing of a target country be considered wrongfully aiding the enemy? When the USA PATRIOT act was rushed through at the height of an anthrax scare without any members of Congress even having time to read it, we were assured that it was to fight terrorists and would not be used against the American people. Since then a plethora of cases whereby the USA PATRIOT act was used against U.S. citizens emerged, including the internment without trial for over three years of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was finally released after no evidence of terrorism was uncovered. The so-called "compromise" before the bill was passed and the media acclaim of John McCain as some kind of human rights champion is one of the biggest con jobs ever inflicted upon the American people. Shortly after the bill was finalized it was spun by Bush security advisor Stephen Hadley as "good news and a good day for the American people." McCain said that it safeguarded "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions." In truth the legislation does the exact opposite, giving Bush carte blanche to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." In addition, under the bill, "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories." The bill also allows hearsay evidence (obtained via phony confessions after torture) to be considered by the military tribunal and bars the suspect from even having knowledge of the charges against him - making a case for defense impossible. This is guaranteed to produce 100% conviction rates as you would expect in the dictatorships of Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe and other torture protagonists who are in many cases allied with the Bush administration and provide phony confessions obtained from torture that allow the U.S. government to scare its people with the threat of imaginary Al-Qaeda terror cells waiting to kill them. Following the Supreme Court's ruling to previously strike down Bush's shadow penal system, Alberto Gonzales is already out threatening federal judges to shut up and get behind the dictator or face the consequences. Gonzales has the sheer gall to attack judges for even considering to "overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent," which is exactly what Gonzales, Bush and the rest of the White House criminals are doing themselves by de facto abolishing the Bill of Rights! This is a dark day for the United States, the day America died and the bastard birth of a literal dictatorship. Related: > The White House Warden: Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat. > Is your daughter a future detainee? What the media didn't tell you about the new anti-terror bill or Bush's power grab > Attorneys For Guantanamo Detainees Could Be Detained As Enemy Combatants Under New Legislation

by **MASONIC PLOT** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:50 pm

Link to Alex Jones Article <a href="http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=16337">www.informationliberation...p?id=16337</a> While we were all watching pedophiles, school shootings and terror tapes those lapdogs passed it in both houses.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:15 am

Habeas Corpus was mortally wounded in 1996 when Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Clinton used a signing statement to say "now this doesn't eliminate habeas corpus" but he was wrong. Dead wrong. The coup de grace of a few days ago is historical nonetheless and I think should have all school teachers, media mouths, and churches declaring a national emergency.  Voting out all of Congress that perpetrated this crime against the Constitution is the least we should do. <a href="http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241464.html">library.findlaw.com/1999/...41464.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>FindLaw > Library Federal Habeas Corpus Review By Todd Maybrown of Allen, Hansen & Maybrown, P.S. CAUTION : The constitutionality and breadth of the many changes to the law of habeas corpus as the result of recent legislation is currently the subject of multiple court challenges. This overview reflects the law as of September 1999. The practitioner is advised to fully and independently research the topics covered by this overview given the rapid changes in this area of law. SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES The writ of habeas corpus is the procedure by which a federal court inquires into illegal detention and, potentially, issues an order directing state authorities to release the petitioner. As described by the United States Supreme Court, "its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraint." Fay v. Noia , 372 U.S. 391, 401-02, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). The Supreme Court has described the writ as a "prisoner-initiated civil remedy informed by equitable principles, and as a statutory procedure over which the courts, or at least the Court, exercises broad regulatory power." J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 2.2 at 15 (3d ed. 1998). Before venturing too far into these legal waters, the practitioner must take care to analyze all relevant statutes ( see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244-2266), court rules (see Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts), and a complex body of Supreme Court caselaw. If this were not enough, on April 24, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). See Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). Don't be fooled by the title; the statute has little to do with terrorism. Rather, Title I of the AEDPA makes important changes in the statutes governing federal habeas corpus practice for state prisoners and enacts a new set of statutes to govern federal habeas corpus practice in capital cases in "opt-in" States. Upon signing the law, the President claimed that the AEDPA was not intended to make substantive changes for granting the writ. See Statement of the President of the United States upon Signing the Antiterrorism Bill, 1996 WL 203049 (White House, April 24, 1996). The President explained that he would not have signed the bill if he thought the federal courts would interpret it "in a manner that would undercut meaningful habeas corpus review." Id . It is too early to gauge the impact of the AEDPA on federal habeas corpus practice. Some experts fear that President Clinton drastically understated the impact of the new statute (particularly in light of the new review standards articulate in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). <hr></blockquote>

by **MASONIC PLOT** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:10 am

Here, here Hugh. Well said and of course I agree entirely. They are all guilty of treason!

by **postrchild** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:51 pm

So arent they kinda painting themselves into a corner with all this vague terror-support verbage? Eventually it seems that this could come back to bite them in their peado-occultic backsides....that is if "Boosh" hadn't written in dictator authority into this bill. They are all guilty of treason and sedition against the very people they were sworn (or not) to protect. I DO NOT advocate, nor plan, in any fashion violent overthrow.....but it would be what they would deserve, to have them drug from their seats of power into the streets and beaten with the shoes of all the present citizens, then hung on capitol hill. In my book thats too good fro them. There are no words to express my feelings of betrayal at ALL of our elected officials. Each and every one of them should be put in front of a firing squad. Fortunately I dont own a gun, nor plan to, unless it becomes necessary to protect myself or family from bodily harm. And in that event I doubt it will matter much as to how you obtain a firearm, lawfully or not, for the law wont be the LAW anymore. Am I the only one who feels like laws are written without the authors subjectivity in mind?

by **postrchild** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:54 pm

And this brings up the next question.....when are they going to finally kill our right to bear arms? That will be the death knell my friends......then they have no fear of being confronted with a lead welcome mat......

by **NavnDansk** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:05 pm

Watch the clip of General Batiste defending the Geneva Conventions at YouTube. Listen and think carefully about what he is saying. A post under the vid read: "The context is that Bush isn't following the laws of war. That's interesting." "It's staggering that we have this many morons in our midst. If they can't accept that Generals in the military are saying this stuff now then they will never understand." I followed the Green Party Recount site for months and even with Diebold and ES&S vote changing, there was enough of a paper trail to investigate - constituents had to kick Kerry's ass every step of the way to get him to sign the papers and New Mexico the next state after Ohio to be investigated started destroying voter information illegally, they are supposed to keep it for 2 years and the Green Party gave up at that point after months of heroic work but John Conyers kept filing even a year later and wrote WHAT WENT WRONG IN OHIO - Conyers is the minority leader and did not have subpeona power. He has mentioned on his blog again and again that with subpeona power all of the questions he has formally asked the bush regime who has ignored his requests for documents and answers, Conyers would be able to subpeona answers to questions about election fraud in 2004 and the Downing Street Memos and to begin the Impeachment Inquiry. John Conyers would be come the Head of the Judiciary instead of the very corrupt Sensenbrenner and Conyers, as he has mentioned on his blog, was one of the Watergate Congressional attorneys and he knows exactly what to do with subpeona power and the MAJORITY position of Head of the JUDCIARY. I think the military is signalling that they will get involved if there is massive election fraud again by the rove/bush regime - the main theme of AMERICAN COUP D'ETAT: Military Thinkers on the Unthinkable the Harpers Magazine RoundTable Discussion was that a Military Coup would be useless in America unless the people accepted it and the fact that Bush has initiated a Coup against our form of government and the subtext is that any military action would be a Counter-Coup against an illegitimate president who is destroying our form of government. I think it is clear that the military would prefer to act within what is left of our laws which is the reason for the recent statement of a general report in the online MSM that we must get out of Iraq and that is the consensus of the generals but the American generals are not going to pull a Latin American type coup but we must get out of iraq. This was not Gen. Batiste but his recent testimony before Congress and comments in interviews, I think is signaling that the military is prepared to act if bush trys to steal another election but the legitimacy of the military action would depend on the number of Americans definitively signaling their distrust of the bush regime with their ballots and not just in polls and again much of the cheating that Diebold does can be proved if the states are forced to turn over their voting day documentation like sign in sheets along with the computer detective work that can be done if ordered by Congress. Watch Gen. Batiste's opening statement in the DEMOCRATIC hearing on Iraq last week. Batiste states it is CRUCIAL to vote in November. This is not a celebrity or a partisan politician saying this - and the voice emphasis in the last part of his opening statement should be seen and heard by everyone awake enough to know what is going on. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=navndansk>NavnDansk</A> at: 10/4/06 11:12 am

Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Re: Habeas Corpus Murdered, Few Notice

Watch the clip of General Batiste defending the Geneva Conve

Who is online