Naturally, we are told this ?arrogation of all power into the hands? of the unitary decider will apply only to ?foreign nationals,? that is to say Muslims. Hitler said much the same.
The enemies of the fatherland were foreigners?and their German fellow travelers?members of the comintern (communist international), Hitler declared, and such subversion required austere measures, including interning thousands in concentration camps, subjecting them to interrogation, torture, and summary execution.
As Marty Lederman points out, the so-called ?military commissions bill,? if read literally, ?means that if the Pentagon says you?re an unlawful enemy combatant?using whatever criteria they wish?then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to ?hostilities? at all.?
This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It?s not limited to aliens?it covers U.S. citizens as well. It?s not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it?s not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.
For some, it is a relatively easy task to dismiss Lederman out of hand as a paranoid crank, or possibly another conspiracy nut.
However, even the Los Angeles Times warns of the draconian aspect of this law. ?[T]he bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice,? writes Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale.
This atrocious, Hitlerian bill authorizes ?the government to seize and detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, anyone who ?purposefully and materially supported hostilities? even if not engaged in armed conflict, including U.S. citizens arrested inside the United States,? explains Human Rights First.
?Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who ?supported hostilities??rather than those who ?engage in acts? against the United States?the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield,? notes the Washington Post.
?In short,? writes John Dean, ?this could include anyone the federal government (Bush and Rumsfeld will delegate and re-delegate this authority) labels ?an unlawful enemy combatant.??
Nazi Germany provides a historical example of what we can expect in the months ahead. William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, explains how tribunals operated under fascism.
Hitler?s courts consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.
Under Bush?s Detainee bill, however, the secretly accused, snatched off the street and disappeared in classic Gestapo fashion, will not be allowed to select an attorney?one will be appointed by the Inquisition.
article
love that freedom country ....