- Granted, it was stupid. Patrice Lumumba Ford, Jeffrey
Leon Battle, Martinique Lewis, and brothers Ahmed Ibrahim Bilal and Muhammad
Ibrahim Bilal attempted to travel to Afghanistan, supposedly to take up
arms with the Taliban and al-Qaeda against the invading US military. They
made it as far as China and -- unable to enter Pakistan -- turned around
and came back to the United States.
-
- Now they're in big time hot water.
-
- An Oregon federal court heard oral arguments last week
on a motion in United States v. Battle against the four men plus Battle's
ex-wife October Martinique Lewis. All are charged with conspiring to wage
war against the United States and attempting to support a terrorist organization.
-
- The defendants argue that the government should reveal
the justification for the secret warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The warrants allowed the FBI to clandestinely
wiretap the suspects' phones and plant bugs in their homes, and in the
process to end up with more than 271 intercepted conversations. The defendants
want to know the basis for the surveillance so they can determine if the
FBI violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and
seizure. In response, the judge ruled that the basis for the warrants would
remain secret.
-
- ãAmazingly, even if the defendants move to suppress
evidence resulting from the wiretaps and microphones from being offered
at trial, they may still not have a chance to see the warrant applicants,ä
writes Anita Ramasastry, assistant professor of law and associate director
of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University
of Washington School of Law. ãThe government will show them only
to the judge -- along with the underlying evidence, and an affidavit from
the U.S. Attorney General's Office stating that releasing the material
would harm national security... Without the benefit of adversary briefing,
the judge will then rule on whether the warrants satisfied the law. Defendants
will still remain in the dark -- and when the motion is decided, they'll
receive yet another ruling based on secret evidence.ä
-
- In other words, kiss the Fourth Amendment good-bye.
-
- Since the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 was passed under
Clinton, at least five federal district courts have ruled that secret evidence
incarcerations are a violation of the due process rights of defendants
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The government has used secret evidence
at least 50 times since the law was passed. Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Act
of 1996 was designed primarily to detain and deport non-citizens. Of course,
that was before September 11 and John Ashcroft. Now secret evidence is
being used against citizens -- and Patrice Lumumba Ford, Jeffrey Leon Battle,
Martinique Lewis, and Ahmed Ibrahim and Muhammad Ibrahim Bilal are all
US citizens.
-
- For those of us who care to remember, candidate Bush
made a vow during the second presidential debate with Al Gore to put an
end to secret evidence and racial profiling. "There is other forms
of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially
profiled in what's called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we got
to do something about that," said Bush.
-
- ãEven though the Bush campaign never formally
committed themselves to a total elimination of secret evidence, they continued
to suggest that they would,ä writes James Zogby. ãThey also
provided talking points to campaign supporters who were to address Arab
American audiences leaving little doubt that, if elected, Bush would end
the use of both practices.ä
-
- That was then, this is now.
-
- Now the Bushite cabal has decided to trash hundreds of
years of Anglo-American legal tradition in favor of the sort of justice
meted out by the military courts of Peru where anonymous judges rule wearing
black hoods. In America, as in Peru, the ruling elite no longer has any
use for due process of law. ãThe left is right: America is an unjust
society," observes Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reaganite, which is
to say anything but a leftist. "Americans are no longer secure in
law -- the justice system no longer seeks truth and prosecutors are untroubled
by wrongful convictions.ä
- Roberts wrote the above in 2000, well before 911 and
the installation of the Bush dictatorship -- and before the Patriot Act
and its odious progeny and (soon to be rolled out): the Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003.
- ãEven Nazi war criminals were considered to deserve
public trials under established legal procedures, despite other irregularities
involved in trying them,ä writes Sam Francis. ãEven if we do
assume the guilt of those to be hauled before the secret courts, we are
opening a door to hauling others -- including Americans -- before similar
courts in the future if the president and attorney general imagine that
such citizens 'do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution.âä
-
- Now, instead of prosecuting Nazis, the Bushites are doing
their best to emulate them.
-
- Like Hitler, Bush will decide who will be taken before
secret military tribunals and prosecuted with secret evidence. Last November
Bush signed a secret memorandum bestowing upon himself the dictatorial
power to decide who will disappear into the entrails of his secret courts.
Predictably, the memorandum was drafted by the Ashcroft Justice Department.
But the idea was originally presented by William Barr, a Justice Department
lawyer -- soon to become attorney general -- under Bush Senior. It was
supposedly created as a way to handle the terrorists responsible for the
1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. 9/11, of course, is
an even better excuse than Lockerbie.
- Like father, like son.
-
- Bush Junior, like Caesar Augustus before him, desires
to establish an imperial court. "Imperial court officers took over
the job of prosecuting criminal defendants" under the authoritarian
legal system of the Roman emperor, writes the Constitutional Rights Foundation.
"A network of spies and investigators passed on evidence to the imperial
prosecutors. Torture became a common method for gathering evidence and
securing confessions. The concept of a fair trial further suffered because
the emperor could always dictate the verdict."
-
- Is Bush our Caesar Augustus -- and will we allow him
to assume such fearful powers?
-
- ãRegardless of the unattractiveness or noisy militancy
of some private citizens or organizations, the Constitution does not permit
federal interference with their activities except through the criminal
justice system, armed with its ancient safeguards,ä remarked Congressman
Don Edwards in 1975.
-
- Bush and Ashcroft have effectively hobbled these "ancient
safeguards."
-
- COINTELPRO II -- complete with newly invigorated (and
legalized) CIA-style covert action (e.g., infiltration, psychological warfare,
legal harassment, and violence) -- will be unleashed not only against Islamic
Arabs, but patriot and progressive organizations and individuals as well.
In fact, these are the authentic targets of Bush-Ashcroft and the New World
Order, not blundering terrorists in caves half way around the world. ãThe
truth is that the FBI has always had the power to infiltrate terrorist
groups,ä note Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen. ãThe problem has
been the Bureau's diversion of resources to monitor and harass activists
whose only 'crime' was working for social change.ä
- Or working to save our Bill of Rights.
-
- Naturally, a lot of Americans will have no problem denying
Islamic militants -- even American Islamic militants -- due process of
law if they believe it will prevent another 911 or worse. The Bushites
understand this all too well. In fact, the entire duct tape and plastic
sheeting scheme of staged terror alerts is designed to instill the sort
of irrational fear and paranoia required to get people to accept the dismemberment
of their constitutional rights.
-
- Even so, in cities and towns across the nation, the Bush
anti-liberty juggernaut is encountering determined resistance. More than
22 cities and towns -- representing nearly 3.5 million residents -- have
passed resolutions designed to blunt the Patriot and Homeland Security
Acts and about 70 other cities from Texas to Hawaii have resolutions in
the works, according to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. The FBI,
however, is not buying it. ãWe don't believe that any of these resolutions
will have any effect on our ability to work with local law enforcement
in fighting terrorism,ä Mark Corallo, deputy director of the Justice
Department's Office of Public Affairs, told USA Today in January. ãThe
Patriot Act is the law of the land. It was passed overwhelmingly by a broad
majority of bipartisan congressmen. Everything we do is in accordance with
the Constitution.ä
-
- Corallo failed to mention that Congress did not carefully
study the 342-page bill nor was appropriate time taken to debate it or
to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement. According to
Democratic congressman John Conyers, only two copies of the bill were available
to his side of the aisle. ãThis was the least democratic process
for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen,ä
complained Congressman Barney Frank. ãA bill drafted by a handful
of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune
from amendment.ä
- As for the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,
the Justice Department was caught unaware when the Center for Public Integrity
received a copy of a draft and released it to the public. ãDepartment
staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General
or the White House,ä said Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs
for the Justice Department, in a statement released soon after the Son
of the Patriot Act hit the streets. ãIt would be premature to speculate
on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still
being discussed at staff levels.ä
- It sure would.
-
- The draft was intended to remain secret -- although a
control sheet attached to the document indicated it had been sent to Speaker
Hastert and Cheney. Either the Bushites and their hand-picked collaborators
in Congress are waiting for the Iraq invasion or another mysterious terrorist
act to occur before they rush the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003 through a submissive and spineless Congress afraid of being called
unpatriotic.
-
- Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and
author of Terrorism and the Constitution, finds it disturbing that there
have been no consultations with Congress on the draft legislation. ãIt
raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that
they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in
the works. What that suggests is that theyâre waiting for a propitious
time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that
time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a
much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away.ä
-
- ãVoice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders,ä remarked Nazi cabinet minister without
portfolio and Hitler's designated successor Herrman Goering at Nuremberg.
ãThat is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.ä
-
- Unfortunately, it seems to work that way in America,
too.
-
-
- Kurt Nimmo welcomes your comments at <mailto:nimmo@zianet.com>nimmo@zianet.com.
|
