History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776. [.. loss of Habeas Corpus, origininated in 1215 !]

History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.

By Robert Parry | October 18, 2006

From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing “unalienable rights” as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading “Protecting America.”

On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other “unlawful combatants,” including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

“It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives,” Bush said. “I have that privilege this morning.”

But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel “star chamber” system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.

The law strips “unlawful combatants” and their alleged fellow-travelers of the fundamental right of habeas corpus, meaning that they can’t challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, at least not until after they are brought before a military tribunal, tried under special secrecy rules and then sentenced.

One of the catches, however, is that with habeas corpus suspended these suspects have no guarantee of a swift trial and can theoretically be jailed indefinitely at the President’s discretion. Given the endless nature of the “global war on terror,” suspects could disappear forever into the dark hole of unlimited executive authority, their fate hidden even from their families.

While incarcerated, the “unlawful combatants” and their cohorts can be subjected to coercive interrogations with their words used against them if and when they are brought to trial as long as a military judge approves.

The military tribunals also could use secret evidence to prosecute a wide range of “disloyal” American citizens as well as anti-American non-citizens. The procedures are similar to “star chambers,” which have been employed historically by absolute monarchs and totalitarian states. ...

Guilty Until Confirmed Guilty ... “America can be proud,” said Senator Lindsey Graham [!!!]

Guilty Until Confirmed Guilty | Published: October 15, 2006

When President Bush rammed the bill on military commissions through Congress, the Republicans crowed about creating a process that would be tough on terrorists but preserve essential principles of justice. “America can be proud,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s architects.

Unfortunately, Mr. Graham was wrong. One of the many problems with the new law is that it will only make it harder than it already is to separate the real terrorists from the far larger group of inmates at Guantánamo Bay who were bit players in the Taliban or innocent bystanders. Mr. Graham and other supporters of this dreadful legislation seem to have forgotten that American justice does not merely deliver swift punishment to the guilty. It also protects the innocent.

Mr. Bush ignored that fact after 9/11, when he tried to put the prisoners of the war on terror beyond the reach of American law and the Geneva Conventions. For starters, he dispensed with one of the vital provisions of the conventions: that prisoners must be screened by a “competent tribunal” if there is any doubt about who they are and what role they played in hostilities. As a result, hundreds of men captured in Afghanistan and other countries were sent to Guantánamo Bay and other prisons, including the network of illegal C.I.A. detention camps, without any attempt to determine whether they were any sort of combatant, legal or illegal.

The Bush administration showed not the slightest interest in fixing this problem until the Supreme Court said in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the president cannot simply lock up anyone — even a foreign citizen — without giving him a real chance to challenge his detention before a “neutral decision maker.” ...

A conservative American constitutionalist who loves his country can find little in the case for [Bush] impeachment to take exception to.

October 14, 2006 | Why Bush Should (but Won't) Be Impeached | by Paul Craig Roberts

The case for impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is far stronger than the case against President Bill Clinton or the impending case that drove President Nixon to resign. With Republican control of Congress, especially of the House where impeachment must originate, it is hardly surprising that impeachment of the Republican Bush administration is a dead letter.

What is surprising is that conservatives with a long tradition of adulation for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have not been up in arms against the Bush regime's all-out assault on the foundation of America's political system. Instead, the case for impeachment has come from the left wing. This weakens the case, because it can be portrayed as a partisan political move instead of a last-ditch attempt to save the Constitution.

In Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney, edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips, left-wing professors, journalists, and activists present a 300-page, 12-count indictment.

It is for the most part a sound indictment. A conservative American constitutionalist who loves his country can find little in the case for impeachment to take exception to. ...
...
Civil libertarians rely on the judiciary to defend constitutional rights, but the Supreme Court has been compromised by Bush's appointments of Roberts and Alito, men who believe in "energy in the executive." Without support from Congress, the judiciary cannot protect civil liberty. With the passage of the recent detainee and spy bills, Congress has allied itself with the Bush regime against civil liberty.

Beliefs are more important than institutions. Michael Polanyi wrote that if people believed in the principles of Stalinism, democracy would uphold Stalinism. If people believe in American hegemony, they will not complain when barriers to hegemonic actions are removed. If people believe fighting terrorism is more important than civil liberty, they will lose civil liberty.

What America needs to refurbish is its beliefs. Without renewing our beliefs, we cannot renew our civil liberties and hold government accountable.

Bush has been Torturing American Citizens since 2002

Padilla Update: Bush has been Torturing American Citizens since 2002

By Mike Whitney

“For most of the 1,307 days, Mr. Padilla was tortured by the United States government without cause or justification.” Michael Caruso, acting Federal Public Defender; “Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct”, US District Court, Miami Division “This is conduct that shocks the conscience.” Supreme Court 342 US at 166 ibid

10/14/06 "Information Clearing House" Jose Padilla is an innocent man. His story tells us everything we need to know about the Stalinist regime currently operating in Washington and their utter disdain for human rights, civil liberties and American citizenship.

Padilla was taken into custody on May 8, 2002 at Chicago’s O’ Hare Airport by Federal agents and placed in solitary confinement. He was stripped of his constitutionally-guaranteed rights and forbidden to see an attorney. He was detained as a material witness although Attorney General John Ashcroft accused him publicly of being a “dirty bomber”; alleging that he was planning to detonate a nuclear device within the United States. He was not charged with a crime.

For the next 4 years he was isolated, tortured and used as a lab-rat in drug experiments with LSD and other mind-altering hallucinogens. To date, the government has never produced a scintilla of evidence proving that Padilla is guilty of anything. Still, no attorney, no court, and no law have been able to set him free. The entire system has buckled under the load of imperial power leaving every American exposed to the capricious actions of the president. What happened to Padilla can happen to any of us and no one is truly safe until the case is fairly resolved.

The Padilla case proves that Bush was planning to overturn habeas corpus and institute a de-facto dictatorship from the very beginning. Padilla has never been a threat to national security; in fact, the government has changed its story nearly every time it makes a public statement. There was no dirty bomb, no fissile material, no weapons, no explosives, no conspiracy, and no provable link to terrorists. The government has no case and they know it. Padilla is merely the unwitting victim of a plan to discard the Bill of Rights and establish the supreme power of the presidency. ..