Ok to jail US citizens indefinitely without hearing or trial

This is old news...

Quote:

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

Bill of Rights Pared Down...

ebrown_p wrote:

This is old news...

Quote:

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

Bill of Rights Pared Down...

I just bet they never foresaw anything like that.

Actually, I have a suspicion that they want this to get to the Supreme Court. Then it applies in all jurisdictions.

Executive power

Roberts also seemed to reject executive power to order the detention of American citizens in wartime simply because of their nationality or religion, similar to the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

"I would be surprised if there were arguments that could support it" even in wartime, he replied.

Say what? That's the question we've been asking for a couple of years, now.

I'm thousands of miles from the USA but can smell a rat from over there.
The democracy that you're imposing on other countries extols such tenets as FREEDOM ( meaning some freedoms for some people) LIBERTY ( I'm free to do what the better armed and economically more powerful let me do) LIFE ( what you get if you disagree with the US Government) PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ( give me a break )

You may think that it's OK to forego a few individual freedoms for the protection of the majority - but where/when will it end ?

Occupied New Orleans and Homegrown Resistance

The appearance of fully-armed mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans tells us that the city is currently under occupation. Whenever foreign troops are deployed within an urban area it can only mean one thing; the loss of sovereignty. It's no different here. Blackwater mercenaries are part of a privately owned army that has seized control of the streets from their rightful owners, the people of New Orleans. They are an integral part of a much broader plan to militarize the nation and turn America into a garrison-state.

Blackwater employees may work for the United States government, but, in fact, they represent the exclusive interests of an elite cadre of corporate globalists who are transforming America into a base for future operations. New Orleans is simply the testing-grounds for their radical theories of establishing order. It provides a pilot-program for working out the kinks that inevitably arise from revamping society from the ground up. So far, the project is moving ahead better than anyone could have expected, mainly due to the media's skillful diversion of the public's attention from the militarization-process to the many human-interest stories of suffering and rebirth. It is a cynical way of exploiting misery and obfuscating the truth.

Just like Iraq, the propaganda-system has been the most successful part of the entire campaign; working flawlessly to provide a storyline that runs counter to the facts as we know them.

New Orleans is the first American city to come under the direct control of the global-corporate oligarchy. By taking advantage of loopholes in the current law created by terrorist legislation, Rumsfeld has been able to insert both the military and private security organizations into a major metropolitan area without as much as a peep from his critics. There's simply been no opposition from any quarter to a draconian move that will have sweeping affects on the future of liberty in the US.

We can only imagine the gleeful reaction to these new developments at America's many elite-bastions, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the others, who have worked so tirelessly to overturn the basic principles of personal freedom and representative government. The emergence of a militarized police-state is the victory they have sought for decades. Now, it has materialized in the wreckage of the South's main port-o-call.

The soldiers and mercenaries will be part of a permanent military contingent in New Orleans performing routine policing activities, assisting NGOs, and executing various disciplinary functions. The Red Cross is already being assisted by Blackwater employees; ensuring that vital assistance is meted-out according to strict guidelines rather than mere need. These same restrictions have been applied in Afghanistan and Iraq to make sure that victims meet certain political criteria before they can get aid. This is how the Pentagon enters NGOs into the overarching military goals of the operation and turns relief into a subtle form of coercion.

Realistically, New Orleans can no longer be considered a part of the United States. It now belongs to that confused jumble of quasi-states like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq that toil beneath the corporate banner of the new world order.

The pattern emerging in New Orleans is no different from the one we see wherever the corporate globalists extend their grip. The social safety-net is savaged, the public infrastructure is destroyed, and the path is paved for the multinational parasites to descend on their prey and reap their windfall profits from "no-bid" contracts.

The shifting political realities in New Orleans are bound to create a growing sense of unease and horror among the public. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti, that disquiet has evolved into indigenous resistance movements. We expect the same will take place in New Orleans. The deployment of troops is a deliberate provocation and a direct threat to the fundamental principles of a free society. It cannot stand. Democracy is incompatible with occupation; whether it's in Iraq or New Orleans. Any talk about freedom in America is pointless until every soldier and mercenary is removed from the streets of our cities.

Courtesy & Copyright © Mike Whitney

http://uruknet.info/?p=16346&hd=0&size=1&l=x

I still am not convinced there is a difference between the actions of the two governments.

the point was making was if the civil rights leaders had been imprisoned under the same laws bush is using, there wouldn've have been a Civil Rights movement or any achievements.

I was extending the logic of the argument to show that powers to imprison without cause leads to the wrong people/innocent people being incarcerated. Mandela is a prime example of why locking away people who don't agree with the government or expound radically different ideas to those held by society at large is wrong.

It is again another example of people being impriosned because of their views.

what is the difference between the government and the stalinist gulags?
how would civil rights movement have fared?
wouldn't nelson mandela would still be imprisoned?
the state of israel would not exist as David Ben Gurion et al would have been locked away

The US is not at the centre of world events throughout out history, nor did I suggest the US was culpable in imprisoning Ben Gurion.

when does a terrorist become a freedom fighter?

how are today's palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists (delete as applicable) any different from the israelis of the 1940's?

Why aren't people marching in the streets in protest?

US Court Decision a Setback for Government Terror Case
By Sonja Pace
Washington
22 December 2005

A U.S. federal court has handed the government a stinging defeat in the terrorism case against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for more than three years in military detention as an enemy combatant.

A Federal Appeals Court has denied a Justice Department request to transfer Jose Padilla from military detention to civilian custody to stand trial on criminal charges in Miami.

Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 2002 as he returned from a trip to Afghanistan. The Justice Department alleged he planned to set off "dirty bombs" in the United States that could spread radioactive material. The department won an initial ruling from Judge J. Michael Luttig to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant.

Last month a grand jury in Miami charged Mr. Padilla with belonging to a North American terrorist cell that helped finance and recruit fighters for attacks outside the United States, making no mention of the dirty bomb allegations or attacks in the U.S. The Justice Department subsequently asked the Appeals Court to allow Mr. Padilla's transfer to Miami to stand trial.

In writing Wednesday's court's decision, Judge Luttig, noted that the government left the "impression" that Jose Padilla may have been mistakenly detained these past three-and-a-half years and was now changing tactics to avoid further judicial review of the case, possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

David Remes is a Washington lawyer, specializing in constitutional law. He told VOA the court's decision is a sharp rebuke of the government's handling of the case.

"The court clearly felt that the government was playing games," he said. "The government had made a very strong argument that Padilla was very dangerous, had to be treated like an enemy combatant and that the government needed very wide latitude in dealing with him. And, then the government says, well, never mind."

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department is disappointed by the court's decision and is leaving its options open on how to proceed.

Judge Luttig also wrote that the Padilla case should be brought before the Supreme Court.

David Remes says that is now very likely. He says the case goes far beyond the specific charges brought against Mr. Padilla and is less about terrorism than about a struggle between two branches of the federal government, the executive and the judiciary.

"These are major, major issues of constitutional law," he added. "They go to the heart of the separation of powers. They go to the heart of the system of checks and balances. They go to the heart of the right of Americans."

Mr. Padilla's lawyers welcomed the Appeals Court decision. They have questioned the administration's authority to detain him under such conditions. Human rights groups and critics of the Bush administration have also denounced the practice of detaining terrorism suspects, indefinitely and without the promise of a trial.