In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
In terror case, security trumps legal rights
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
In terror case, security trumps legal rights
Moussaoui, who's defending himself in a capital case, poses questions about fair trial.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui as the alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks is creating friction with fundamental civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution.
At issue is the extent to which federal prosecutors may continue to impose strict, special security measures on Mr. Moussaoui that directly hinder his ability to serve as his own lawyer and develop an effective defense.
Moussaoui is being held in solitary confinement and barred from nearly all contact with the outside world. Prosecutors say the harsh tactics are necessary to shield the nation from possible acts of terror carried out by Moussaoui from his cell.
Defense lawyers familiar with Moussaoui's situation say it is a constitutional "train wreck" in the making. They say that unless the government allows Moussaoui to consult with legal experts, find and talk to defense witnesses, and gain access to key evidence, his right to a fair trial will be effectively denied.
No direct precedent
The fair-trial issue is particularly acute in cases like Moussaoui's in which the US government is seeking the death penalty, these lawyers say. In fact, no American judge has ever directly ruled on the issue emerging in this case: whether federal prosecutors may impose security restrictions that significantly tie the hands of a defendant who is representing himself in a capital-punishment case.
"I can't think of an analogous circumstance in which you hand the keys to the defense over to the prosecutors and say, 'You get to decide the kind of access [Moussaoui] has to the outside world, even as it affects his ability to defend himself," says Gerald Zerkin, an assistant federal public defender who is on a team of experienced lawyers appointed as standby counsel for Moussaoui.
Because of the very real dangers of the ongoing war on terror, the Moussaoui case raises difficult questions about how to balance the right to a fair trial against the government's duty to safeguard national security.
The issue arises at a time when a wide range of government antiterror initiatives have put civil liberties in a different light. The indefinite detention of "enemy combatants," as well as the secret jailing of up to 1,200 individuals on suspicion that they might possess useful information, has generated controversy.
Despite these government actions, a federal judge in Boston has ordered a relaxation of the special security measures applied in the case of alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid. "[Mr. Reid] has the right to the most vigorous, skilled defense that our society can afford, and I'll see that he gets it," US District Judge William Young said in a June ruling. Unlike Moussaoui, Reid is represented by counsel.
The judge in the Moussaoui case, Leonie Brinkema, has declined to alter in any way the security arrangements.
Federal prosecutors say Moussaoui accepted many burdens on his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial when he fired his court-appointed lawyers and asserted his right to serve as his own attorney. "Are you aware that by being your own attorney, it will become more difficult for you to have access to evidence, access to witnesses, access to legal research, because of the restrictions under which you are presently housed?" asked Judge Brinkema at a June hearing.
Moussaoui answered: "Absolutely." The judge added, "Whereas, if you had an attorney ... these lawyers are able to see information, to contact witnesses, and do things that you cannot do from your cell. Do you understand that?"
"I do," Moussaoui replied.
Later in the same hearing, the judge told the defendant: "I just want to advise you that there will be ... national-security types of information, as well as sensitive airport information, that could be relevant to your defense to which you will not be able to get access. Do you understand that?"
Moussaoui answered, "I understand this."
Requesting bin Laden video
Despite this assertion of understanding, Moussaoui filed a legal motion last week "to get access to so-called secret evidence." Moussaoui is requesting, among other items, a copy of the now-famous videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the Sept. 11 attacks. The video was released by US officials and broadcast internationally. But, Moussaoui says, the government has since classified it as "secret," which prevents him from seeing it.
"When special administrative measures interfere with the defendant's right to prepare and present a defense, they violate the Sixth Amendment. It's as simple as that," says Michael Tigar, an American University law professor and defense attorney with experience in terrorism trials.
"He can be subject to some restriction," Mr. Tigar adds. "But the government must give him the opportunity to prepare and present an effective defense."
Others see it differently. "He has chosen to represent himself, knowing full well that he has these restrictions on him," says Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor now at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. "Having made his own bed, he has to sleep in it."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0807/p02s02-usju.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Moussaoui, who's defending himself in a capital case, poses questions about fair trial.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui as the alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks is creating friction with fundamental civil liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution.
At issue is the extent to which federal prosecutors may continue to impose strict, special security measures on Mr. Moussaoui that directly hinder his ability to serve as his own lawyer and develop an effective defense.
Moussaoui is being held in solitary confinement and barred from nearly all contact with the outside world. Prosecutors say the harsh tactics are necessary to shield the nation from possible acts of terror carried out by Moussaoui from his cell.
Defense lawyers familiar with Moussaoui's situation say it is a constitutional "train wreck" in the making. They say that unless the government allows Moussaoui to consult with legal experts, find and talk to defense witnesses, and gain access to key evidence, his right to a fair trial will be effectively denied.
No direct precedent
The fair-trial issue is particularly acute in cases like Moussaoui's in which the US government is seeking the death penalty, these lawyers say. In fact, no American judge has ever directly ruled on the issue emerging in this case: whether federal prosecutors may impose security restrictions that significantly tie the hands of a defendant who is representing himself in a capital-punishment case.
"I can't think of an analogous circumstance in which you hand the keys to the defense over to the prosecutors and say, 'You get to decide the kind of access [Moussaoui] has to the outside world, even as it affects his ability to defend himself," says Gerald Zerkin, an assistant federal public defender who is on a team of experienced lawyers appointed as standby counsel for Moussaoui.
Because of the very real dangers of the ongoing war on terror, the Moussaoui case raises difficult questions about how to balance the right to a fair trial against the government's duty to safeguard national security.
The issue arises at a time when a wide range of government antiterror initiatives have put civil liberties in a different light. The indefinite detention of "enemy combatants," as well as the secret jailing of up to 1,200 individuals on suspicion that they might possess useful information, has generated controversy.
Despite these government actions, a federal judge in Boston has ordered a relaxation of the special security measures applied in the case of alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid. "[Mr. Reid] has the right to the most vigorous, skilled defense that our society can afford, and I'll see that he gets it," US District Judge William Young said in a June ruling. Unlike Moussaoui, Reid is represented by counsel.
The judge in the Moussaoui case, Leonie Brinkema, has declined to alter in any way the security arrangements.
Federal prosecutors say Moussaoui accepted many burdens on his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial when he fired his court-appointed lawyers and asserted his right to serve as his own attorney. "Are you aware that by being your own attorney, it will become more difficult for you to have access to evidence, access to witnesses, access to legal research, because of the restrictions under which you are presently housed?" asked Judge Brinkema at a June hearing.
Moussaoui answered: "Absolutely." The judge added, "Whereas, if you had an attorney ... these lawyers are able to see information, to contact witnesses, and do things that you cannot do from your cell. Do you understand that?"
"I do," Moussaoui replied.
Later in the same hearing, the judge told the defendant: "I just want to advise you that there will be ... national-security types of information, as well as sensitive airport information, that could be relevant to your defense to which you will not be able to get access. Do you understand that?"
Moussaoui answered, "I understand this."
Requesting bin Laden video
Despite this assertion of understanding, Moussaoui filed a legal motion last week "to get access to so-called secret evidence." Moussaoui is requesting, among other items, a copy of the now-famous videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the Sept. 11 attacks. The video was released by US officials and broadcast internationally. But, Moussaoui says, the government has since classified it as "secret," which prevents him from seeing it.
"When special administrative measures interfere with the defendant's right to prepare and present a defense, they violate the Sixth Amendment. It's as simple as that," says Michael Tigar, an American University law professor and defense attorney with experience in terrorism trials.
"He can be subject to some restriction," Mr. Tigar adds. "But the government must give him the opportunity to prepare and present an effective defense."
Others see it differently. "He has chosen to represent himself, knowing full well that he has these restrictions on him," says Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor now at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. "Having made his own bed, he has to sleep in it."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0807/p02s02-usju.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM
By: Albert V. Burns
ITEM: The so-called Patriot Bill: In the wake of the September 11 attacks on the World TradeCenter and the Pentagon, both Houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law a bill which NO-ONE in either House had even seen.... since it had not yet been printed. However, the timing is proof positive that the bill had been prepared PRIOR to the attacks! This law is a direct attack on the freedoms and rights of all Americans, NOT just terrorists!
ITEM: The Shays-Meehan "Campaign Reform Law": The proper name of this law should have been the "Incumbent Protection Law." The reform in funding of campaigns will go into effect ONLY AFTER the next general election. However, it IMMEDIATELY will control political advertising which seeks to expose the voting records of office holders who have been violating their oaths of office. A clear violation of our First Amendment right of free speech. It is worth noting that many members of both Houses publicly admitted that there were parts of this bill which were UNCONSTITUTIONAL but they voted FOR it anyway. If that is not malfeasance in office, I don't know what would be!
ITEM: "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act:" This is a proposed law which is, or will be, aggressively promoted in every state legislature. If enacted, it will give the governor of the state virtually DICTATORIAL powers to control real estate, food supplies, transportation, communications, firearms, medical facilities, medicines and the list goes on and on! Once the law is enacted, the governor may give himself/herself these powers by simply declaring an "emergency." In the act, "emergency" is NOT clearly defined and may be any excuse the governor wishes to use. An OPEN DOOR to tyranny!
ITEM: "Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook:" This is a new attack on the very basis of a free society: private ownership and control of property! This could have been taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto which maintained that ALL property must be controlled by the State. This little gem provides FEDERAL subsidies to STATE governments which agree to establish FEDERAL rules for the zoning and control of PRIVATE property. This "Guidebook" took seven years to produce and cost $2.5 MILLION of taxpayer funds. This is an example of the textbook definition of FASCISM: Government control of privately owned property.
ITEM: "Homeland Security Agency:" This innocuous sounding title hides the truth about the largest and most serious power grab in American history. This bill (which has already passed the House) will create the basis for a national police force. It will consolidate the "enforcement" actions of 22 different government agencies into one monstrous bureaucracy. Most of the activities being consolidated are presently subject to Congressional oversight. Once the become part of the executive branch exclusively, that oversight will be difficult if not impossible. We have here the beginnings of an American "Geheime Staatspolizei"-- a Gestapo.
ITEM: "Military Police Field Manual #3-19.40:" The subtitle on this government manual is: "Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations." This was issued a few months BEFORE the 9/11 attacks and has been virtually totally ignored by the mass media. It is the official government military policy for establishing and maintaining CONCENTRATION CAMPS in this country. NOTE: Already existing prisons are capable of handling any anticipated foreign terrorists! "Internment / Relocation" Camps, the politically correct term for concentration camps, are needed ONLY to imprison large numbers of AMERICANS!
Does all this BEGIN to cause a bit of unease in your mind? Do you begin to see a pattern in what those in government are DOING? The enemies of freedom are deadly serious and, if we are to have any hope of remaining a FREE people, we must DAMN WELL get just as serious about protecting our freedoms as they are about destroying them. We must get ACTIVE NOW, not tomorrow, or next week or next month! Every minute we delay will add dearly to the price of ultimate victory!
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!
Albert V. Burns writes from Utah and is a regular columnist for the Spanish Fork Press. He has an extensive knowledge of the conspiracy which has been working so hard to destroy this nation and incorporate it into a one world government. He has developed an extensive personal research library and the knowledge to find what he needs, to write his columns. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Albert V. Burns can be reached at: avburns@mindspring.com
Published in the August 8, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright c 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone. http://www.etherzone.com/2002/burn080802.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Justice Dept. Refuses To Provide Documents
_____From FindLaw_____
By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 7, 2002; Page A01
The Justice Department yesterday defied a federal judge's order to provide him with documents that would have supported the government's classification of a man captured in Afghanistan and being held in a Navy brig in Norfolk as an "enemy combatant."
Government lawyers allowed a noon deadline to pass without handing the materials over, saying that the separation of powers clause of the Constitution gives the executive branch the authority to make that determination.
"An inspection of the requested materials would all but amount to a [new] review of the military's enemy combatant determination, and thus exceed the limited standard of review governing the Executive determination at issue," the Justice Department said in a legal memo.
The argument frames the sensitive question of what rights, if any, are available to military prisoners, particularly an American-born one such as Yaser Esam Hamdi, as the United States continues its war on terrorism. The Justice Department has said that the judicial branch has little right to intervene in the conduct of the war, but yesterday's action was the first time the government has not agreed to a judge's request.
The government's action sets the stage for a constitutional confrontation tomorrow with U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar in Norfolk. Doumar has twice ordered the government to allow a lawyer to visit Hamdi, and twice the government successfully obtained stays of Doumar's order.
Doumar is scheduled to hear arguments tomorrow on whether the government's enemy combatant classification was proper and whether Hamdi could see a lawyer. After Doumar ruled that Hamdi was entitled to counsel, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him last month to reconsider, giving great deference to the government's wartime determinations. Doumar then told prosecutors to provide him with copies of Hamdi's statements, notes from interviewers, a chronology of his locations, and the names and addresses of his interrogators. Doumar said he would review the information privately.
Prosecutors instead filed a motion asking Doumar to drop his request.
"Such intrusive discovery is unnecessary in this case," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence R. Leonard and the solicitor general's office. "None of the materials listed in the court's July 31 order is within the scope of a proper inquiry into Hamdi's legal status."
Stephen Dycus, a national security law expert at the University of Vermont, said he could not think of any other time the government ignored a court's order. "I don't think the Justice Department has the power to simply defy the court," he said. " . . . I don't remember anything in the 4th Circuit's order that would limit the District Court's ability to look into the national security necessity for keeping this guy."
Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in November and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but when investigators learned that he was born in Louisiana, he was transferred to Norfolk. The federal public defender for Eastern Virginia, Frank W. Dunham Jr., began efforts to meet with Hamdi in case the government decided to charge him.
However, the government had labeled Hamdi an enemy combatant and said he is not entitled to counsel. Dunham and Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a motion with Doumar seeking access to the detainee.
Doumar granted the request, and the government appealed to the 4th Circuit in Richmond. A three-judge panel's ruling July 12 sent the case back to Doumar, saying he needed to have more facts and hear more arguments.
The opinion, written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, advised Doumar that "the political branches are best positioned to comprehend this global war in its full context and it is the President who has been charged to use force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks."
But Wilkinson also wrote that some judicial review is necessary, otherwise "any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel."
A week later, Doumar asked the government to explain why it was holding Hamdi, and on July 25, prosecutors submitted a two-page declaration by Michael H. Mobbs, a Defense Department special adviser on enemy combatants.
Mobbs wrote that Hamdi traveled to Afghanistan in July or August of last year, joined a Taliban military unit, received weapons training and remained with his unit after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Prosecutors believe that Mobbs's declaration should be sufficient for Doumar's needs. "Under the fundamental separation of powers principles recognized by the 4th Circuit . . . in justifying the detention of captured enemy combatants in wartime, the military should not need to supply a court with the raw notes from interviews with a captured enemy combatant . . . or the other types of information listed in the court's order," Leonard wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. Dunham said "the government's doing everything it can to avoid reaching the merits of the case."
Dycus suggested that prosecutors, mindful that the case is being closely watched by lawyers and civil libertarians, "must have in mind setting some precedent that would be helpful to them in certain other cases."
c 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50845-2002Aug6.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Doug Fiedor - Fiedor Report
It's not often we agree with liberals. But, when the topic is Liberty versus stronger centralized government controls, we tend to agree with whoever is on the side of Liberty.
For instance, the grossly misnamed Patriot Act is about to get totally shredded by the courts as unconstitutional. Even so, Attorney General John Ashcroft and others are going forward with it as if it were something Americans would actually respect. Fact is, the only ones who want that stupid Patriot Act are those who love big government control of everything in our lives -- and we already have too much of that. Part of the problem is the Operation TIPS program.
It was interesting, then, that in an editorial last month on TIPS, The Boston Globe wrote: "This is not an updating of George Orwell's '1984.' It is not a satire on the paranoid fantasies of right-wing kooks who see black helicopters swooping across their big sky. It will be a nationwide program run by Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. If it is allowed to start up and gather steam, it will begin in 10 cities and then expand everywhere, enrolling millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors."
Exactly! The new Citizens Corps has the potential to turn every obnoxious neighborhood busybody and jerk into a government informant. Anyone with a grudge against someone would then have a method of causing them endless hours of grief with federal officials. Check out the protocol.(1) There is opportunity for all sorts of serious mischief there.
To his credit, House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- Chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security -- realized this. So, in his markup of legislation to create a Homeland Security Department, Armey rejected both the proposed national identification card and deleted the program that would use volunteers for domestic surveillance. Then, the Committee included language in the legislation to prohibit the Justice Department from initiating Operation TIPS.
The Committee also inserted language that would create a "privacy officer" in the Homeland Security Department -- the first ever established by law in a Cabinet agency. Rep. Armey said this person would "ensure technology research and new regulations from the department respect the civil liberties our citizens enjoy."
Then came some bad news. Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhardt -- Bush's choice to lead the military's new Northern Command to run military flying patrols over American cities and respond to major terrorist attacks -- told the New York Times that he favors changes in existing law to give increased domestic law enforcement powers to the military. "We should always be reviewing things like Posse Comitatus and other laws if we think it ties our hands in protecting the American people," Gen. Eberhardt said.
On a Fox interview, terrorist czar Tom Ridge called Gen. Eberhardt's remarks about the need for such a review "very appropriate."
In another interview on CNN's Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, Ridge tried to tone it down some by saying that the discussion is an academic one. "There's been absolutely no discussion with regard to giving military authorities the ability to arrest in their support of civilian authorities." Asked whether he believes the military should have the power to arrest U.S. citizens, he replied: "No."
Then, Ridge made another about-face: "We need to be talking about military assets, in anticipation of a crisis event," Ridge said last week on Fox News Sunday. "And clearly, if you're talking about using the military, then you should have a discussion about posse comitatus."
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., that resident socialist- fascist the people of Delaware keep inflicting on the rest of us, strongly endorsed giving the military the power to arrest American civilians. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Biden -- who, unfortunately is still a member of the Judiciary Committee -- said the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the military from exercising police powers in this country, should be re-examined and "has to be amended."
Biden, we should remember, is the one who agreed with Janet Reno that ignorance of the law, for civilians, is no excuse. No person in government knows all federal law, rules and regulations. But, Biden thinks we must. Yet, he is always willing to give a free pass to anyone in government, usually saying things like "they probably just did not understand all points of the law."
Now comes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Levin called the Posse Comitatus Act a "solid law" that "has served us well." He continued: "We should not assume that we're going to have to change it. On the other hand, I don't fear looking at it to see whether or not our military can be more helpful than they've been up to now" in providing training, equipment and other assistance in disaster situations. But the military should not be arresting people.
That same week on Late Edition, Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), who is the ranking Republican on the Governmental Affairs Committee, said he believes military troops could be useful for tasks such as "surveillance along the borders thousands of miles that are very difficult for law enforcement to deal with."
Thompson makes a good point. As organized now, the INS is damn near useless. They will not even deport illegal aliens when they are delivered to them by other police agencies. Let the kids in the war-suits watch the borders. But, give them bullets this time. Maybe that will help some.
One point that should be made is that American civilians have the ability to protect their own homeland. We already have police departments for that. There are also millions of well trained prior-military people on our streets every day. If at least half were armed, that becomes a major deterrent against both terrorism and street crime.
Government should be a major part of the fix. Instead, many in our government tend to be part of the problem. So, here's a thought: Let the IRS people run INS and the INS people run IRS. That could quickly become a more productive (and comfortable) arrangement.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3510
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Copyright 2002 by United Press International. August 06, 2002
WASHINGTON, Aug 05, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The FBI reacted strongly Monday to an inspector general's audit showing U.S. law enforcement agencies are missing hundreds of weapons and laptop computers, mostly from the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The FBI said it was tightening its inventory control.
But one of the bureau's harshest congressional critics, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, blasted the FBI.
"It's no surprise that hundreds of computers and guns are missing from the Justice Department, but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow," Grassley said in a statement released by his office.
"This problem has real consequences, in criminal acts and danger to national security."
Grassley said the audit shows "the problem of missing guns at the FBI, in particular, is a mess, and it's been that way for years. It stems from weak discipline, lax standards, tardy reporting and few, if any, consequences."
The audit, which was released Monday, was triggered by an FBI internal audit last summer that showed 265 weapons and 180 laptops were missing since 1990.
The inspector general's audit found nearly 775 weapons either missing or stolen from five U.S. law enforcement agencies within the Department of Justice, and about 400 missing laptops.
The inspector general's report said the INS and the FBI reported the largest number of missing weapons, 539 and 212, respectively.
The FBI said had an additional 211 weapons reported missing outside the audit time period, exclusive of last summer's audit. None of the other three agencies -- the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service -- reported more than 16 missing weapons.
The bureau confirmed that one of the 180 weapons reported stolen from cars or homes of FBI agents was used in a homicide.
In a statement Monday, the FBI said it is "undertaking to tighten up inventory control" and security procedures "will be strictly enforced."
Beyond that, "the institutional response to the loss of an sensitive property, like a gun or laptop, will be prompt and robust," the FBI said, "both from a security standpoint and from an accountability standpoint."
The creation of the FBI's new Security Division will also improve the bureau's performance, the statement said.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=4964608&BRD=1594&PAG=740&dept_id=226958&rfi=6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Jessi Winchester, Author of From Bordello to Ballot Box
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me - but by that time, no one was left to speak up."
- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
The U.S. Postal Service has gained the respect and pride of the every day American for recognizing tyranny and having the spine, integrity, and patriotism to "Just Say No" to a practice that should not be tolerated in a free society, and certainly should not have even been considered by those elected to protect our best interests.
With clear intent to deceive, Bush minions slap patriotic names on policies whose intent is anything but patriotic, so its no surprise the Justice Department's newly formed Citizen Corps means anything but freedom to every citizen of this country. Fuehrer Bush is despicably recruiting millions of American citizens to spy on each other with Operation T.I.P.S. [Terrorism Information and Prevention System], comprised of recruited government informants the Citizen Corps will use to collect massive data on every day Americans. The Bush administration wants neighbors to rat on neighbors; friends to snitch on friends; colleagues to turn in their fellow co-workers; employees to inform on innocent customers - all under the guise of "fighting terrorism." Nazi Germany did the same exact thing - with catastrophic results.
Information, whether accurate or unsubstantiated, will be fed into a Justice Department data bank which the department will share with a broad range of other agencies, including ultra powerful F.E.M.A. This practice is reminiscent of the dreaded German SS.
It's pretty evident our own government has an "us vs. them" mentality and views its citizens as the enemy. It's also clear the Bush administration intends to destroy the very foundation of liberty they claim to protect. By imposing such actions as a National ID Card, use of biometric identifiers, the T.I.P.S. domestic informant program, attempting to eliminate the Posse Comitatus law, use of military against civilians, and putting executive orders in place that would virtually turn the nation into an occupied state - it is impossible to conclude anything other than the current administration intends to create a tyrannical form of government by turning America into a communist/socialist nation.
A program like this can only destroy morale and create distrust among its citizens. The climate for abuse is tremendous. A person might be a fervent reader of public policy or human nature and own books about the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, or Ruby Ridge, but that does not make them anarchists. They may be a college instructor, or an author, or simply curious about how others think, but they risk being reported as a potential terrorist if the local plumber simply sees such books on their shelves.
Gun magazine subscriptions don't mean the reader is planning a full-fledged assault against the government, yet the cable TV installer might decide we are a threat to society and send the T.I.P.S. gendarme to our door.
The Feds won't be able to check the background of all its informants, which means many with mental illness, axes to grind, or who simply like the feeling of power over another, could be inundating the databank with useless information that could result in harm to the person being snitched on. Government simply won't have the staff to tackle the immense volume of useless information. Additionally, this type of privacy invasion should never be tolerated and the time and expense put into it should be spent on real crime such as controlling our borders, dealing with gang activity, or even hunting down genuine terrorists - not in spying on and harassing innocent law abiding citizens.
Quite frankly, the events of September 11th pale next to the sinister agenda being put into effect by the Bush administration. It is quite possible we may not survive as a free country under his watch.
Even those who used to poo-poo so-called "conspiracy theorists," now admit they see sinister policies and plans for Americans originating from the secretive White House. Forget thinking the greatest threat to America is terrorists; we are seeing a clear picture develop of our own government destroying the very principles of freedom and liberty they claim to be protecting.
We are becoming another Nazi Germany with the Bush administration's draconian policies. Bush's ominous plan to turn millions of Americans into a network of snitches smacks of past history when Germans assisted in creating a tyrannical government by cooperating in a "citizen spy" program
Even some of the Feds themselves are beginning to recognize the danger coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Elected officials on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security have put together a bill that would prohibit implementation of any federal program that encourages people to spy on each other. Majority Leader Dick Armey's committee also included wording in the bill that would prohibit a national ID card. It's about time someone in a position to harness this train wreck took steps to make top leaders of the land accountable and put the brakes on out of control power plays. The rest of us need to heed the postal service's example and refuse to cooperate with a policy that can only lead us down the path to tyranny and dictatorship.
Current government leaders are thinking "outside the Constitution" which only benefits presidents and their minions and pushes citizens deeper into harm's way. We are cattle who are not paying sufficient attention to escalating events within the normal workings of our everyday government. This is an awareness we cannot afford to overlook. American patriots need to begin an organized resistance to intolerable policies and laws. We have reached our "line in the sand?
Comment on this article on our Message Board.
Copyright @ Jessi Winchester 2002, All Rights Reserved
Column written for LibertyForAll Internet Magazine, April, 2002
Winchester was raised on a cattle and crop ranch in Iowa. Besides working full-time for Hollywood executives and doing some part-time motorcycle stunt work, Jessi has also worked in the legal bordellos, competed in a Mrs. Nevada pageant, produced an industry calendar, held annual Bordello Balls for charity, was the subject of an infamous larger-than-life painting by renown artist John Hunt, ran for political office, and has now become a published author. Jessi Winchester remains an advocate for the every day citizen and an outspoken voice for individual liberties as defined under the U.S. Constitution.
"Childhood on a cattle ranch in Middle America led to adulthood on a very different type of *ranch* in Nevada," so says Jessi Winchester in her recently released book.
Jessi's autobiography, From Bordello To Ballot Box, was released by BainBridgeBooks of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in November, 2000. The book goes behind the mysterious closed doors of Nevada's legal brothels to look at the ladies who choose to work in the industry and the clients who visit them. It also chronicles the author's personal experiences as a political candidate, provides a revealing look at the private faces of political personalities and explores how ruthless and unseen power mongers control and predetermine political choices. Her journey documents the strength of the human spirit in overcoming prejudice and double standards in an effort to simply be treated as a human being. Jessi can be reached via email at Jwinchster@aol.com
http://www.libertyforall.net/2002/archive/august04/hail-george.html
....................
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878