Toward An America Gulag

Hello and welcome to Review of the News Online. I’m William Norman Grigg, Senior Editor for The New American magazine – an affiliated publication of The John Birch Society.

Vladimir Lenin, founder of the world’s first totalitarian state, summarized his theory of government in these words: "The scientific concept of dictatorship is nothing else than this – power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules."

Saddam Hussein once remarked: "Law consists of two lines above my signature." George W. Bush has yet to digest his ruling philosophy into a single memorable utterance. However, regarding summary detention of American citizens, the president is claiming powers similar to those exercised by Lenin, Saddam, and similar tyrants

. The Justice Department, with the active support of the president and Attorney General John Ashcroft, has refused to provide a federal judge with information justifying the open-ended detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi. The administration claims that because Hamdi has been designated an "enemy combatant," the government can detain him for as long as it wishes. During an August 13th hearing, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described the Bush administration’s claim as "the most interesting precedent … in Anglo-American jurisprudence since the days of the Star Chamber."

Named after a star-shaped ceiling design in a chamber at London’s Westminster Palace, the Star Chamber courts were originally used to settle trade and property disputes on behalf of English kings. However, the Star Chamber became notorious during the reigns of Kings James I and his son, Charles, when it became an instrument of royal privilege. Enemies of the English Crown were designated as "outlaws," which originally meant that they enjoyed none of the procedural protections usually recognized in courts of law.

Such people were taken into the Star Chamber, a "court" controlled by the king; their trials were held in secret, no right of appeal was granted, and punishment was swift and brutal – imprisonment in the Tower of London, torture, or execution.

In similar fashion, Hamdi was designated an "enemy combatant" by a minor Pentagon apparatchik named Michael H. Mobbs, who wrote an official "declaration" that Hamdi could be detained, without trial or judicial oversight. During the August 14th hearing, Judge Doumar reflected: "I do think that due process requires something other than a basic assertion by someone named Mobbs that they have looked at some papers and therefore they have determined he should be held incommunicado. Just think of the impact of that. Is this what we’re fighting for?"

Admittedly, Hamdi appears to be a singularly unsympathetic figure. Born in Louisiana, Hamdi is a Saudi national who was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and is currently being held at a U.S. Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia. According to the Mobbs declaration, Hamdi went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. He was captured when his Taliban unit surrendered to forces from the Northern Alliance, the Russian and Iranian-backed radicals whom the Bush administration supported in the post-September 11th military campaign. While this is not exactly a winning resume, it falls well short of being a credible criminal indictment. But the Bush administration contends that Mobbs’ account of Hamdi’s activities "is sufficient to dispose of this case as a matter of law," and that no trial is necessary. "rotno020818_l.rm" "rotno020818_h.rm" "index.htm" "../congress/alerts/homeland.htm"

It is important to recognize that Hamdi – according to the Pentagon’s own account – played no role in planning or carrying out the Black Tuesday terrorist assault. No evidence has been presented that he had prior knowledge of that attack, or that he even expressed support for that atrocity after it was committed. While Hamdi freely offered his services to the admittedly despicable Taliban junta, he posed no threat to our nation or to any American citizen. This sharply distinguishes Hamdi’s case from that of the World War II-era Nazi saboteurs who were captured in this country, detained by the military, tried before a military tribunal, and executed. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case, known as Ex Parte Quirin, acknowledged that "enemy combatants" captured by the U.S. military during a declared war can be tried in secret by military tribunals. But no existing statutes or legal precedents justify the Bush administration’s actions in detaining Hamdi.

The same is true in the case of Jose Padilla, suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" here in the United States. Padilla is an ex-con who gravitated to radical Islam while in prison. Like Hamdi and John Walker Lindh, Padilla migrated to Afghanistan, where he adhered to the Taliban junta. Last June, after Padilla was captured at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, he was designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush and taken into military custody in Virginia.

An August 13th Associated Press report observed that Padilla "is probably a `small fish’ with no ties to al-Qaeda cell members in the United States…. The FBI’s investigation has produced no evidence that Jose Padilla had begun preparations for an attack and little reason to believe he had any support from al-Qaeda to direct such a plot…." No formal charges have been made against Padilla – and the Bush administration insists that none are necessary, since the presidential designation that Padilla is an "enemy combatant" is sufficient to justify his open-ended detention.

If the Bush administration has its way, the Hamdi and Padilla cases will lay the foundation for a revolution in our system of criminal justice. A "senior Bush administration official," commenting about the Hamdi case, told the August 8th Wall Street Journal, "There’s a different legal regime we’re developing" in the so-called war on terrorism. The Journal observes that the new regime contemplated by the administration would blend "the once-separate realms of civilian law and the law of war. Criminal law determines guilt and assigns punishment for past wrongdoing, but the law of war gives governments vast powers to prevent possible harm by imprisoning and interrogating enemy soldiers."

The Bush administration maintains that in dealing with captured enemy combatants, the judicial branch must defer to the military’s judgment. But the administration’s "new regime" has been inspired by reversals in the courtroom, rather than on the battlefield. Notes the Journal: "stung by the courtroom circus that … [accused terrorist] Zacarias Moussaoui, has created, and the aggressive defense marshaled by John Walker Lindh before he plea-bargained his way out of a possible life sentence,

the Bush administration is preparing to expand its policy of indefinitely detaining in U.S. military jails people it designates as `enemy combatants’…. Such prisoners -- whether Americans or foreigners captured in the U.S. – aren’t afforded the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants, or even the limited rights allowed in military tribunals.

The White House is considering creating a high-level committee to decide which prisoners should be denied access to federal courts." Stephen Dycus of Vermont Law School puts the administration’s "revolution" in its properly ominous context: "That sort of thing used to happen in the Soviet Union and may still happen today in Iran and Iraq, but it’s not the sort of thing that should happen in the United States…. If the government succeeds in this case, if its arguments are upheld it would mean that anybody, anytime could be labeled an enemy combatant by the attorney general and arrested in the middle of the night and locked away in a military brig."

Attorney General Ashcroft added another critical detail to this dystopian blueprint by proposing the creation of detention camps for those designated "enemy combatants." Notes Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University: "The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft’s small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases [those of Hamdi and Padilla] … to see whether their vision could become a reality."

Although Professor Turley has hardly earned a reputation as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, it is impossible to argue with his conclusion: "Whereas al-Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft [and, it must be added, the president who appointed him] has become a clear and present threat to our liberties…. Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks…. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending."

Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week. This has been Review of the News Online from The John Birch Society. For more information about what you can do to preserve our freedoms, call: 1-800-JBS-USA1

http://www.jbs.org/reviewonline/020818_transcript.htm © "http://www.jbs.org/website/copyright.htm" 2002 The John Birch Society, Inc. "http://www.jbs.org/contact/"

I agree. Some, like Numbers Guy, may ridicule the JBS for being wary of Big Government and conspiracies to expand its powers to even more menancing levels; but, it is better to be a little too "paranoid" about losing our liberties than to be too naive and complacent.

The JBS after all was responsible for republishing the libertarian classic The Poeple's Pottage by Garet Garrett which includes the essay "The Revolution Was" -- and this came out long ago. What we need is a revolution to roll back those socialist programs and Marxist planks that were instituted during the regimes of Wilson, FDR, and others since then (esp. LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton).

Griggs's argument has much to commend it.

While we recognize that war differs qualitatively from peace, the Administration has made no attempt to draw the qualitative distinctions that should separate accused civilians from enemy combatants. If this difference is left nebulous, and subject to "flexible reinterpretation" by whoever holds the Administration, then anyone who differs dramatically and vocally from the policy of this Administration -- or future Administrations -- could be in for an exceedingly rough ride.

The old standard was that an "enemy combatant" was someone you'd captured on the battlefield, wearing the uniform of the enemy, or at least visibly bearing arms in company with the enemy. That was the trigger, if you'll pardon the choice of words, for all the classical protections afforded to captured soldiers under international rules of civilized combat. It was also the rationale for the summary execution of saboteurs and spies, who were 1) conducting war against you within your own land, but 2) not doing so in uniform, and thereby assuming the appearance of one of your own, protected civil populace.

The sin of the Administration to this point has been to downplay the combatant / accused civilian distinction to the point of effacing it completely. For the sake of our freedom, the very security against arbitrary exertions of power we claim to be defending, we must unearth and revitalize these rules. Once that's been done, let Hamdi, Padilla et al. be re-examined under them. It's nothing more than justice -- and justice is most endangered when we propose to suspend it in treating with persons we find repugnant.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

What I'm amazed at, is given that the Birchers think every President since Eisenhower was either a Commie or a dupe, how has the U.S. survived the Communist onslaught for this long?

I don't believe that is an accurate statement about the John Birch Society. The Society believes that Communism is one part of a larger movement toward world government (and world domination by a self-appointed ruling class), which has not slowed one bit since the fall of the USSR. It would be more accurate to say that these Presidents were accomplices in moving the US toward world government, which was also a goal of Communism.

To see how we have held up, ask yourself if we have more independence today than we did twenty, fifty, one hundred years ago.

"If you find another American you don't like, all you have to do is designate him an enemy combatant and all of a sudden he has no rights. If Hillary were president and using this system, Rush Limbaugh would end up in Leavenworth."

If Hillary were president, Red Nation would become ungovernable for Washington within 48 hrs. after her inauguration!

You are correct that she'd be stupid - and institute some kind of overt police state not limited just to Arab and Moslem aliens. In doing so, she'd - fast - convince every redneck here in Red Nation that we'd have nothing to lose by starting the leaderless-resistance uprising outlined in Unintended Consequences; Washington simply lacks enough troops - particularly loyal ones - and fedcops to deal with such a scenario in the huge contiguous area known as Red Nation.

Hillary winning in 2004 could be the very best thing that ever happened for Red Nation!

Do you know what street spy cameras and traffic cameras look like - and their weaknesses?

Right and Left Paranoia

Right Wing (in America) means favoring private property, individual rights (private enclaves of freedom for peaceful people), free markets, and constitutional limitations on government

Left Wing means opposition to private property and the desire for the government to take over and control everything (well at least the major industries) in one big government monopoly.

Right-Wing Paranois - fear of Big Government abuse of power and tyranny

Left-Wing Paranoia - fear of corporations and Big Business abuse of power The Left's phobia is misplaced or excessive. Neither corporations nor any other business in the market can actually force (use violence on) people to make us deal with them, buy from them, or work for them. It's all by voluntary choice and consensual contract. Businesses -- even big corporations -- have to rely on persuasion -- advertising, marketing, attractive alternative pricing, new products, etc, not coercion. Any coercive power a corporation may have is from its association with or privileges from . . . . ta-da! . . . interventionist government! The source is political government -- Big Government with the authority to take from some and intervene to dish out goodies and privileges to others.

So, it seems to me, if one really wants to keep business abuse of power at bay, one should advocate a policy of laissez faire, viz., allowing anything that's peaceful (non-violent and non-fraudulent) but having the government come down on all fours on criminals and foreign aggressors who pose a threat to peaceful people. Laissez faire means extending the First Amendment's "disestablishment clause" (with government taking no sides and giving no privileges to any church or sect) to all market (i.e., non-violent) activities.

It seems to me the Right's concern about the growth of Big Government is much more rational and on-target than the Left's paranoia about big or little business. Businessmen are driven by the selfish desire for profit and the avoidance of losses, and they can only become wealthy by producing something that other people want and are willing to pay for.

Mrs. Fields may charge a dollar a cookie -- but nobody is forced to buy the cookie. If somebody buys the cookie, it is because they want the cookie more than they dollar they are giving in exchange for it. The same cannot be said for government programs: you are foced to pay into FICA taxes whether you like it or not, whether you will ever live to receive SS benefits or not, whether you agree with it or not. It is compulsory, not voluntary. You are given no choice; the money is taken right out of your paycheck and immediately spent by government. Mrs. Fields may use advertising to seduce or persuade people to decide to buy her product -- but no violence is involved. By contrast, virtually all government programs are funded by the violence of coercive taxation and operate by coercive regulations and controls.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Toward an American Gulag?