Without preambles...nestle down with a steaming cup of whatever your' brew of preference might be...and read this little tale by Christopher Ketcham:
"In the spring of 2007, a retired senior official in the U.S. Justice Department sat before Congress and told a story so odd and ominous, it could have sprung from the pages of a pulp political thriller. It was about a principled bureaucrat struggling to protect his country from a highly classified program with sinister implications. Rife with high drama, it included a car chase through the streets of Washington, D.C., and a tense meeting at the White House, where the president's henchmen made the bureaucrat so nervous that he demanded a neutral witness be present.
The bureaucrat was James Comey, John Ashcroft's second-in-command at the Department of Justice during Bush's first term. Comey had been a loyal political foot soldier of the Republican Party for many years. Yet in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he described how he had grown increasingly uneasy reviewing the Bush administration's various domestic surveillance and spying programs. Much of his testimony centered on an operation so clandestine he wasn't allowed to name it or even describe what it did. He did say, however, that he and Ashcroft had discussed the program in March 2004, trying to decide whether it was legal under federal statutes. Shortly before the certification deadline, Ashcroft fell ill with pancreatitis, making Comey acting attorney general, and Comey opted not to certify the program. When he communicated his decision to the White House, Bush's men told him, in so many words, to take his concerns and stuff them in an undisclosed location.
Comey refused to knuckle under, and the dispute came to a head on the cold night of March 10, 2004, hours before the program's authorization was to expire. At the time, Ashcroft was in intensive care at George Washington Hospital following emergency surgery. Apparently, at the behest of President Bush himself, the White House tried, in Comey's words, "to take advantage of a very sick man," sending Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales on a mission to Ashcroft's sickroom to persuade the heavily doped attorney general to override his deputy. Apprised of their mission, Comey, accompanied by a full security detail, jumped in his car, raced through the streets of the capital, lights blazing, and "literally ran" up the hospital stairs to beat them there.
Minutes later, Gonzales and Card arrived with an envelope filled with the requisite forms. Ashcroft, even in his stupor, did not fall for their heavy-handed ploy. "I'm not the attorney general," Ashcroft told Bush's men. "There"-he pointed weakly to Comey-"is the attorney general." Gonzales and Card were furious, departing without even acknowledging Comey's presence in the room. The following day, the classified domestic spying program that Comey found so disturbing went forward at the demand of the White House-"without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," he testified.
What was the mysterious program that had so alarmed Comey? Political blogs buzzed for weeks with speculation. Though Comey testified that the program was subsequently readjusted to satisfy his concerns, one can't help wondering whether the unspecified alteration would satisfy constitutional experts, or even average citizens. Faced with push-back from his bosses at the White House, did he simply relent and accept a token concession? Two months after Comey's testimony to Congress, the New York Times reported a tantalizing detail: The program that prompted him "to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases." The larger mystery remained intact, however. "It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate," the article conceded.
Another clue came from a rather unexpected source: President Bush himself. Addressing the nation from the Oval Office in 2005 after the first disclosures of the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance became public, Bush insisted that the spying program in question was reviewed "every 45 days" as part of planning to assess threats to "the continuity of our government."
Few Americans-professional journalists included-know anything about so-called Continuity of Government (COG) programs, so it's no surprise that the president's passing reference received almost no attention. COG resides in a nebulous legal realm, encompassing national emergency plans that would trigger the takeover of the country by extra-constitutional forces-and effectively suspend the republic. In short, it's a road map for martial law.
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 12
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
~Martin Niemoeller~
Think about it...trial run, perhaps?
Yet, the Texas 3rd District Apellate Court said what the CPS did was illegal. That's a good sign...at least some judges uphold the law. Protecting us from mass arrest.
"The case of Jose Padilla is quite simply the most important case in the history of the American judicial system."
Jose Padilla and The Death of Liberty
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." Judge Antonin Scalia
By Mike Whitney
09/10/05
I had to sit down when I heard the Padilla case had been settled. I literally felt sick to my stomach, like I was gasping for air. The case of Jose Padilla is quite simply the most important case in the history of the American judicial system. Hanging in the balance are all the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence including habeas corpus, due process and "the presumption of innocence". All of those basic concepts were summarily revoked by the 3 judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court. The Court ruled in favor of the Bush administration which claimed that it had the right to indefinitely imprison an American citizen without charging him with a crime. The resulting verdict confers absolute authority on the President to incarcerate American citizens without charge and without any legal means for the accused to challenge the terms of his detention. It is the end of "inalienable rights", the end of The Bill of Rights, and the end of any meaningful notion of personal liberty.
I remember reading 3 or 4 years ago, in Zbigniew Brzezinski's, "The Grand Chessboard", of a strategy to dominate the world that would result in the loss of freedom for American citizens. Brzezinski recognized the inherent threat that liberty posed to the development of empire. He stated:
"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
Brzezinski's prescient forecast has proved to be astonishingly accurate. The determination of the neocons, the Federalist Society, the far-right radio giants, the Olin, Scaife, Coors and Bradley foundations, and the entire stable of right-wing, quasi-fascist groups that operate openly within American society, have pounded the final wooden stake into the heart of the personal freedom. The basic legal protections that safeguard the citizen from the arbitrary and hostile action of the state have been rescinded. We all stand naked before the absolute power of the President.
The government has no case against Jose Padilla, a hapless Chicago gang-banger who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at O'Hare airport 3 and a half years ago. He is simply an unwitting victim of circumstance; a convenient scapegoat for eviscerating the rule of law. The Bush administration has used its extraordinary influence in the media to demagogue the case and keep him locked-away without producing one shred of evidence against him. The entire affair has been a grotesque mockery of justice. The hard-right groups that engineered this plot know exactly where the fault-lines in American jurisprudence lie; in the inalienable protections of its citizens.
Padilla became the test-case for shattering the Bill of Rights with one withering blow. It has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectation.
There's no chance that the Supreme Court will retry the case and draw more attention to the shocking details of this judicial-coup; they already punted once before preferring to pass it along to the lower court. Rather, the meaning of the case will be ignored until the president needs to exercise the newly-bestowed powers of supreme leader. That authority is now firmly rooted in the legal precedent established by the Padilla ruling.
No Longer the Land of the Free
Americans seem unaware of the great loss we've all suffered by the Padilla verdict. If the President is allowed to arbitrarily decide who has "inalienable rights", than those rights become the provisional gifts of the government rather than a reliable shield against the abuse of state power. It means that every American citizen is as vulnerable to the same violation of human rights as the men currently imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. It also means that the legal wall that shelters the citizen from the random violence of the political establishment has been reduced to rubble.
The Padilla ruling is the blackest day in American history. The icons of American liberty; the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty; are empty shrines if they are not underscored by the guarantee of freedom. The Vietnam Memorial, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, the 4th of July, the Federalist Papers, and the American flag; all gratuitous expressions of a principle that has vanished from the political landscape.
Every man and woman who ever wore an American uniform and died in the service of their country, died in vain. Their sacrifice has been rendered completely worthless by the action of the 4th Circuit Court.
George Bush has now extinguished every meaningful part of the American dream. The last vestige of the social contract has been defiled and desecrated by the administration and their court. Personal freedom is dead in America; it was impaled by the verdict against Jose Padilla. How many thousands or, perhaps, millions of Americans will die or endure incalculable suffering to regain what we have lost on this tragic day?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10223.htm
Glenn Greenwald has this to say of this case:
"All of that was done by the Bush administration to an American citizen detained on U.S. soil – without any charges ever being brought against him, let alone convicted of any crime. All along, the Bush administration insisted it had the right to abduct and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and deny them access to any courts or even to any lawyers, to either contest the validity of their detention or the legality of their treatment. That is still the Bush administration's position, and the Congress less than two weeks ago purported to give the President the legal authority to do virtually all of that.
The case of Jose Padilla is one of the most despicable and outright un-American travesties the U.S. Government has perpetrated for a long time. It is impossible to defend that behavior, let alone engage in it, and claim with any legitimacy that one believes in the principles that have defined and guided this country since its founding. But there has been no retreat from this behavior. Quite the contrary. The atrocity known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a huge leap forward to elevating the Padilla treatment from the lawless shadows into full-fledged, officially sanctioned and legally authorized policy of the U.S. Government. The case of Jose Padilla is no longer a sick aberration, but is instead a symbol of the kind of Government we have chosen to have."
For entirety of this article go to:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html
J R B,
Four years ago or so I was usually on AOL...at times my Favorites would turn up empty...zap, gone...everything. I mainly had in my Favorites news resources that I would use on a few blogs that I had (a few of which, incidently, also went missing) to which I would post antiwar content. I had the magazines and periodicals I usual use as sources, e.g. Washington Post; Agence France; Irish Sun; Pravda; BBC; NY Times; AntiWar.com; Sydney Herald; Haaretz; The Nation; etc.
At first I thought that maybe I'd accidently destroyed the file via some registry clean-up or something...no. I later in the day checked again and my Favorites were back. Hmm. My mail on AOL would also periodically disappear...and reappear later. Incidently the blogs that disappeared...stayed missing or I could no longer sign into. I had a blog entitled "R7" that I could never sign into again and another "R7 Independent" that just vanished...to name just two. I can still read my articles which I had previously posted via a googles search...http://r7fel.blogspot.com/...but, I can't log on to update with new articles...the last postings I was able to make were in early 2007.
To the point, I recieved back in 2004, an message from the FBI that they had conducted an investigation on me, but, that I had come up clean..."they just wanted to let me know". I had mentioned to some Pastors and Bishops my concerns at a Synod meeting we attended that I suspected my computer was being monitored...by the government. I remember one of them saying that I shouldn't worry, because, I was clean. That due to my blogs they were just trying to find out if I belonged to any groups and organizations that they deem suspect. He added, "You take your' kids to school, go to work, pick up your'kids from school, take your' kids and wife out for entertainment, go to church, you belong to christian organizations, etc. There's nothing there...you're antiwar...somewhat many good people are, also...they just want to make sure that you're not something more actively radical." One pastor said that the fact that I had other blogs that were pro-life and christian in nature wouldn't hurt. I shared the e-mail with them which I'd gotten from the FBI and they all said, "See, there was nothing to worry about." Nothing to worry about, hmm...why are they investigating me in the first place? What ever happened to the time honored American' right to dissent and disagree? Well, I guess, the good Bishop was right...but, I mention this as a warning. Some of us might be on some list and not even know it. I passed mustard THAN...but, have they raised the ante?
What happens if they 'deem' that you are a subversive? Will someone come knocking at your' door?
I detest phones...I only talk to people when I can look them in the eyes. Lol.
My grandson, on the other hand...I believe, was born with a cell phone attached to the side of his' face...well actually, it grew out like a wort once he hit puberty.
"Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri's case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe."
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/05/24/enemy.combatant.ap/index.html
It is important to look at these cases in the abstract...ine general terms, rather, than the individual case or individual cases. Whether the accused is guilty or not is irrelevant. What needs to be focused on is the general idea...U.S. citizen and what implications the determinations in this case are appliable to any 'U.S. citizen', including yourself. One must detach oneself and stand above, if you will, from the fear eliciting rationalization being employed: He's a danger; he's a terrorist; we're only, after all, protecting YOU; etc.
The argument from a U.S. citizen's lawyer is, indeed:
"...as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe."
This is what is at play here...once our' defenses are down or eliminated...today it might be a legitimate terrorist...tomorrow, it may be YOU.
""The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."
(from the same CNN link given above)
Remember the Jose Padilla Case I posted above...this article alludes to it, but, says that 'Padilla fought alongside the Taliban'. This simply isn't so. The White House's assertion that Padilla was planning to use a 'dirty bomb'...blah, blah, blah was baseless and than they tried for years to attach some charge that would 'stick'. This 'fought alongside the Taliban' charge (which was one among many that ultimately failed to 'stick') was leveled at Padilla implying that he had killed or maimed Americans in the process. From the Washington Post on the day that Padilla sentence:
Jose Padilla Finally Catches a Break
By Andrew Cohen
Jose Padilla, the once-upon-a-time-but-not-really "dirty bomb" suspect, was sentenced today in federal court in Miami to 17 years and four months for his role in a terror conspiracy that barely got off the ground. The sentence is shorter by far than the 30-years-to-life sentence recommended under the federal sentencing guidelines.
Why the break for the guy introduced to us in 2002 as the face of terror? Easy: U.S. District Court Judge Marcia G. Cooke, a Bush appointee, was never convinced that the government had a strong case against Padilla and two other convicted in the case. As she said today, "There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere."
The government's lawyers opposed her every step of the way, but Cooke did what she could to even the playing field for the hapless Padilla, a former Chicago gang member. But in the end had to accept an unseemly quick verdict rendered by a jury of Floridians rushing to get out of court after a long trial. She was a genuine judge in a kangaroo court case; a model of reality in a sea of surreality -- and if you don't believe me, just ask the CIA officials who destroyed interrogation videotapes that were material and relevant to Padilla's defense.
Cooke, you may remember, dismissed the terror conspiracy charges against Padilla a few years ago, only to see the federal appeals court reinstate them. Today Cooke took full advantage of her last opportunity to place her mark upon this unfortunate case. The relatively lenient sentence -- it's three years less than the one imposed upon poor John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" -- tells the feds this was never the major league terror case they wanted us to think it was after they abandoned their "dirty bomb" allegations against Padilla.
Cooke may get overturned on appeal, but she's always been right about this case and was again today. And that means that Padilla, the U.S. citizen who became the second "enemy combatant" in our legal war on terror, the man who had to wait years to talk to a lawyer let alone face charges, finally gets a good day from his own country's justice system."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2008/01/post_90.html
This case was not about Jose Padilla...it was about how far the President could go in arresting and detaining (without charges or benefit of a lawyer) a U.S. citizen...in the end he was allowed to go as far as a conviction. Take note...U.S. citizen...and this despite the fact that even the judge knew the kid (U.S. citizen) was being rail-roaded.
The judge is a fellow by the name of Michael Mukasey...who has since been promoted by Dubya to Attorney General of the United States...HOLLER!!!
"Padilla, a U.S. citizen and an alleged al Qaeda associate, has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina navy brig for nearly eight months.
U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey ruled in December that President Bush had the legal authority to declare Padilla an "enemy combatant" and turn him over to military custody,"
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/29/padilla.hearing/