[ALBSA-Info] Fwd: Council for Secular Humanism Electronic Newsletter, Wednesday, No vember 21, 2001

[Xhuliana Agolli]

>From: BusterHL <busterhl at centerforinquiry.net>
>Subject: Council for Secular Humanism Electronic Newsletter, Wednesday, No 
>vember 21, 2001
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:34:01 -0500
>
>FORTHCOMING IN FREE INQUIRY:
>
>A New American Junta?:
>Civil Liberties and Military Tribunals:
>In its haste to protect the American people against terrorists, real or
>imagined, present or future, many in the George W. Bush administration have
>demanded that our traditional civil liberties be abridged. Security, we are
>admonished, must take precedence over liberty.
>
>We do not deny the fact that open democratic societies need to protect
>themselves against terrorists. Everyone grants that tight security at
>airports is vital. Similarly, intelligence agencies need to monitor those
>who are likely to pose a threat. Thus a case can be made that some wire 
>taps
>of cell phones and e-mail are reasonable methods of protection.
>
>I think we need to dissent, however, from many of the provisions which were
>rushed through the United States Congress in the Act labeled USA PATRIOT.
>Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House stampeded Congress and the
>American people into adopting this antiterrorism bill. From many accounts,
>most Congressmen did not even have a chance even to read the final version
>of the bill, much less deliberate before adopting it with very little
>dissent. The anthrax scare (who were the culprits has not yet been 
>answered)
>closed down Congress just as the bill was being considered. There was no
>debate and no amendments were permitted.
>
>The bill, in my judgment, seriously compromises the Fourth Amendment of the
>Constitution (please see attached box), which limits search and seizure. I
>don't see why federal judges cannot examine the requests and issue warrants
>with dispatch prior to searches or wiretaps, and thus not violate the 
>Fourth
>Amendment. The legislation also compromises the Sixth Amendment, which
>concerns procedures for trying accused persons (please see attached box).
>Reports indicate that anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 people of Middle Eastern
>origin have been detained. We still don't know the names of most of them,
>nor the charges against them. Moreover, the bill enables the government to
>monitor conversations between selected inmates and their lawyers, thus
>compromising the client-lawyer relationship. The Constitution (Article VI)
>clearly states that accused shall have the assistance of counsel for
>defense.
>
>Even more ominous than the antiterrorism bill is the "military order" 
>signed
>by President Bush as Commander in Chief and issued on November 13th, 2001,
>on "the detention, treatment, and trial of noncitizens." This order was not
>discussed by members of the Congress, nor was there any effort to seek
>Congressional approval. The order authorizes noncitizens to be tried before
>military tribunals composed of officers of the armed forces. Accused 
>persons
>can be tried in secret, and if convicted by a two-thirds majority of those
>presiding, they can be executed. No grand-jury indictment is required, as
>specified in the first part of Article V of the Constitution, nor is there
>the right of appeal.
>
>Some members of the administration have said that noncitizens "do not
>deserve" equal protection of the laws. According to Vice President Cheney,
>"where military justice is called for, military justice will be dispensed."
>This claim is astonishing. In my view the Constitution applies to all 
>people
>within the United States, not simply to citizens. I have not seen any
>passages excluding the millions of aliens, immigrants, residents, or
>tourists from Constitutional protection. The military tribunal thus clearly
>violates the Sixth Amendment and part of the Fifth.
>
>The real question concerns the phrase "individuals subject to this order."
>(Please see section II, in the attached box.) These provisions may be so
>broadly construed that innocent persons might be accused, tried, and
>executed in secret by kangaroo courts without any Constitutional
>protections. These tribunals are to be selected by the Secretary of 
>Defense.
>The individuals who come under the order are selected by the President (and
>members of his entourage) who will determine who is to be tried. The fear 
>is
>that this power may be abused, or so widely applied so that anyone merely
>said to aid, abet, conspire, or harbor terrorists can be brought before a
>military tribunal in secret with no indictment by a grand jury, found
>guilty, and summarily executed. Where do you draw the line and who is to 
>say
>who is guilty or innocent before a trial?
>
>Chillingly, some have said that these tribunals will not only operate
>overseas, but in the United States itself. We call upon the Congress to 
>hold
>extensive hearings on the limits of Presidential power. How can the 
>American
>people protect itself from tyranny by a military junta? We need to petition
>the government for a redress of grievances.
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>* * * * * * *
>
>Article {IV} (1791)
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
>persons or things to be seized.
>Article {V} (1791)
>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
>crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
>cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in 
>actual
>service in time of War or public danger . . . .
>Article {VI} (1791)
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
>and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein 
>the
>crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
>ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
>accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
>compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
>Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>* * * * * * *
>
>Section 2. Individuals Subject to This Order, from Executive Order of
>November 13, 2001.
>(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual
>who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from
>time to time in writing that:
>(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
>(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaeda;
>(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of
>international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that may have
>caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or
>adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security,
>foreign policy, or economy; or
>(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals . . .
>(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be
>subject to this order.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp