Civil Liberties, Three Years After 9/11
The Other War !
by: Elaine Cassel on: 19th Oct, 04
The hottest topics in the current presidential campaign are the Iraq war and the "war" on "terrorism". It is disappointing how glibly Kerry has adopted the Bush administration's campaign against "terror" and has not critically examined its premise. Of course, to do so, would be political suicide. Any politician who speaks out against the war on terrorism and how it is a war on citizens and civil rights, will risk being called a terrorist or a traitor. Senator Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the un-Patriotic Patriot act and one of the few who voting against the Iraq war, is fighting for his political life in Wisconsin.
The word "terrorism" is defined differently in hundreds of fed laws and regulations, depending on their contexts. The most expansive use of the term, for instance, is reserved for immigrants and resident aliens those having green cards and student visas, for instance.
Terrorism is whatever the government wants it to be. It is a moving and mornping construct. It can justify the closing of streets at home, and the waging of war abroad. It encompasses peacefully demonstrating against George Bush at home, and speaking negatively against him abroad (I am referring to restrictions on Arab news media who are trying to report on Iraq). It is the excuse for declaring a war on civil liberties.
By war on civil liberties, I am referring to the erosion of the freedoms " embodied in the first ten amendments to the Constitution - known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Bush said that "they" "hate" 'us" for our freedoms. Well "they" have much less to "hate" three years after Sep 11. Bush talks of spreading "liberty" abroad like butter or jelly. Well, we are scraping away "liberty" at home. It is something we are told we must do, in order to "preserve" freedom.
A radio interviewer made an interesting suggestion to me recently--should we call the Bill of Rights the Bill of Restrictions? I like that idea. Restrictions on government power. We could reframe them as not freedom of speech but freedom from government intrusion into speech, assembly. Not freedom to have an attorney represent us, but freedom from government eavesdropping on us and our attorneys and on limiting our right to counsel, as it has done in the case of hundreds of immigrants, hundreds of "enemy combatants," material witnesses, and Americans Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla.
We are supposed to have freedom from being arrested without probable cause or not being held to account for a crime unless indicted by a grand jury. We are supposed to be free from government denying us access to the witnesses against us. Evidence is supposed to be presented in open court and subject to cross examination and the scrutiny of the light of day. We are supposed to be free from inquisition by secret evidence. We are supposed to be free from bond being denied us while we await trial and free from cruel and unusual punishment. And by we, I mean not just American citizens, but aliens lawfully in this country. These guarantees have been violated thousands of times since September 11.
Hundreds and hundreds of peaceful demonstrators at the Republican National Convention were arrested and held for as long as three days before a judge dismissed the charges against them. They had committed no crime and further, were held long outside the time allowed by law. Mayor Bloomberg, taking a page from George Bush's playbook, would do it all again, he said, proud that the liberties of Americans were sacrificed in the name of George Bush.
In my book I follow some of the more egregious examples of the government's violation of its compact with we, the governed, embodied not just in the Bill of Rights but also in in federal laws and rules of procedure.
Much of what I wrote about was ongoing as the book went to press. I want to bring you up to date on some of the events I wrote about.
Not one conviction or plea gained by John Ashcroft in his prosecution of "terrorists" has been against anyone plotting anything against the United States. Most have been for non-terrorism crimes like lying on visa application or lying to prosecutors (which is why none of you should EVER talk to a prosecutor you cannot in any way defend yourself, lest you be charged later with lying) or being involved with a Muslim charity that sends money, goods to countries we don't like-regardless of whether relief goes to civilians or not.
The Detroit Cell convictions-the first jury convictions of people charged with supporting "terorrism" have been overturned, the FBI evidence having been deemed a fraud. Attorney Lynne Stewart has begun the defense of her case, the govt having rested last week by reading letters from her client, Sheik Abdel Rahmen, convicted in the 1993 WTC bombings. She should spend the rest of her life in prison, the government argues, because she represented a terrorist, appointed by the federal court to do so. They call her his "associate," not his lawyer. A frightening link that should, and does, give all brave attorneys who defend "terrorists", pause.
What is the government saying Stewart did? They say that in answering press questions about her client and, perhaps, impeding John Ashcroft's efforts to record conversations between her and her client, a blind man in a prison in Minnesota, she was "providing personnel" her client and herself-for terrorism attacks. Ashcroft directed prison officials to tape record all communications with her client.
Ashcroft continues to besmirch the name of Steven Hatfield, the so-called "person of interest" in the anthrax scare of 2001. Last week, a federal judge hearing a suit Hatfield has bravely brought against Ashcroft said that the DOJ made him ashamed of the system. He ordered Ashcroft to either arrest Hatfield or cease libeling and slandering him. But Ashcroft does not obey federal court orders, holding himself above the law. On at least two occasions he personally spoke about the government's case in the Detroit trials, blatantly violating Judge Rosen's gag order on all attorneys. Tell your boss my orders refer to him, Rosen said to a prosecutor in the case.
Three young Muslim men, Northern Virginia residents and American citizens, are serving 85 to 100 years in prison for supporting, with their words, and with one visit to a foreign training camp, the Muslim cause in Kashmir. The three were part of what the govt referred to as the "Alexandria 11. Yes, the got 85 to 100 years for doing nothing. The trial took place in federal court in Alexandria. The buddies who testified against them in exchange for ten years in prison (better than 100, right) said, falsely, that when the guys played paintball they were "practicing" for battle. Better think twice before you schedule a paintball party for your kids' birthday celebration. These men are giving their lives for a cause they talked about said they might someday participate in. The US is on the side of India in the battle between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Endangering the Indian cause is terrorism. But wait, isn't Pakistan our friend, too? Don't ask. I have to emphasize, that there is no consistency in this madness.
source: counterpunch.org |
