- Abu Bakker Qassim
- Adel Abdulhehim
- Adnan Bukhari
- Brandon Mayfield
- Cyrus Kar
- Khaled el-Masri
- Maher Arar
- Moazzam Begg
The Tipton Three
9. Asif Iqbal
10. Ruhal Ahmed
11. Shafiq Rasul
These men were not guilty of at least certain of the incriminating allegations leveled against them by the neocon administration of George W. Bush. Some of these men were subjected to extraordinary renditions. Some were subjected to black-site torture (secret CIA torture prisons—dungeons really). They were subjected to men and women of Medieval minds in the worst sense.
Also, Sami Al-Hussayen and Enaam Arnaout had questionable charges sustained against them. Hamid and Umer Hayat of the Lodi case were entrapped to at least a degree. They were lured by a highly corrupted informant and unethical interrogators into making previously uncontemplated compromising statements. The terrorist cell that the government boasted of exposing never existed.
There is also the case of JosÃ© Padilla. Padilla, a Hispanic US citizen, was held for years without charges for allegedly planning to set off a dirty bomb in the US. Finally, the US government was forced to charge him. They didn't charge him with the initial allegations or anything remotely resembling them. There is nothing about the dirty bomb or links to al Qaeda, which were the reasons given by George W. Bush for holding him as an "enemy combatant."
That alone means his detention was illegal. Everyone connected is responsible and accountable.
If it hadn't been for Padilla's lawyer pressing the matter in court, the US government never would have charged him and would have planned to hold him forever in military confinement on US soil.
Padilla says he was subject to the following:
...forcibly administered mind-altering drugs in an effort to get him to provide information about his alleged Al Qaeda accomplices. ...kept in a state of "complete sensory deprivation," confined for months at a time in a "tiny cell" where the temperatures were manipulated to "extremely cold" levels and "noxious fumes" were introduced, causing his eyes and nose to run. Loud clanging noises were repeatedly heard making it impossible...to sleep.... ...hooded, forced to stand in uncomfortable stress positions and kept "shackled and manacled with a belly chain," .... ... threatened with being forcibly removed from the United States to another country, including the U.S. Naval Base at GuantÃ¡namo as well as threatened with being cut with a knife and having alcohol poured on his wounds.... ...he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake and otherwise assault [him]....
This went on for some three years.
... Padilla, once designated an enemy combatant, entered the custody of the Department of Defense rather than the Department of Justice. An American citizen, convicted of no crime, he has borne the brunt of an incarceration unlike any other in the history of this country. He has been, his lawyers allege, drugged with a "truth serum," which the attorneys charge is either PCP or LSD. He was, his lawyers further allege — it should be noted that the government has declined to address any of these charges — arbitrarily deprived of the few human comforts he was given, like a mattress, a pillow and a sheet. Often, he slept on a bare steel platform. He was denied any contact with any people other than his interrogators and, after almost two years of incarceration, his lawyers; to ensure that he would be at all times in total solitude, his cell was monitored electronically and the unit of 10 cells in which he was held was kept empty. His mirror, at one point the only furniture in his cell other than the steel platform and a toilet, was taken from him, again arbitrarily. He was, despite the request of a representative from the Red Cross, denied a clock or any other way to tell the time of day or keep track of the weeks, months and years that he was incarcerated in the Naval Brig.
His treatment was so unusual, and so psychologically damaging, that even Sandy Seymour, the senior corrections expert at the Brig, told Padilla's lawyer that he was concerned. Staff in the Brig asked superiors whether Padilla could be permitted to have meals with another detainee to alleviate some of the deleterious effects of solitary confinement. That request was denied.
Padilla is forever scarred, says a psychiatrist who has examined him. He is paranoid, worried that if he so much as discusses what he went through in the Brig, he will be sent back, worried that letters from his mother are faked, worried that his lawyers are government plants. He will not discuss what happened to him in the "recreation" cage where he was occasionally taken, saying only that he begged his guards not to put him there. When he is asked by his attorneys to discuss his case he begs them not to — "please, please, please," he says, according to the affidavit of a psychiatrist who examined him on behalf of the defense. When he does allow himself to be questioned by his attorneys, according to an affidavit filed by one, "he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements, and contortions of his body. The contortions are particularly poignant, since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel."
But what was done to Padilla may not just make the case against him more difficult to prosecute; it may, his attorneys are now arguing, make him totally unprosecutable. Padilla has come to exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder so severe that, accused of being a terror mastermind, he now "lacks the capacity to assist in his own defense," according to the psychiatrist's affidavit.
Padilla is broken, not to gain any information he may or may not have had concerning terrorist plots, but as a human experiment by sadistic monsters, the demon-possessed, in the White House and Pentagon.
The accused was held in extreme isolation for 1,307 days. Held in a nine-by-seven-foot cell. The only window blacked out. He was the lone prisoner on the two-tier cellblock. He was given food through a slot in the door. He slept on a steel mattress. No reading material. No calendar. No clock. Nothing to connect him to the outside world.
But it was the short trip down the hallway for a dental examination that captured the utter isolation and sensory deprivation inflicted on Jose Padilla during his 3 Â½ years in the Navy brig at Charleston, S.C.
Helmeted guards, their faces obscured behind dark plastic visors, manacled his hands and feet through slots in his cell door. They covered his ears with sound-canceling headphones, covered his eyes with blacked-out goggles.
On the mundane level, if one assumes that those working directly on these different people were unaware that the US government is the strong arm (agent of coercion) of the rebellion against God, it and other governments being ruled by subversives (antichrists), then it would appear to be reasonable that the suspects be investigated. However, the system seeks to convince US public opinion that it is desirous to break everyone.
The system is sending out the signal to all that they better not cross the Empire, because the Empire will make an example of you.
Staying on the mundane level but introducing the divine, consider this. People who are guilty of crimes against God are already broken. Each is a combination of willful and ignorant in varying degrees, but each is nevertheless broken. The fact is that in order to assure an end to crime, people must be put back together. Where they were never healthy in this life, they still need to be healed. This is not what has been going on.
Of course, the problem is, among other things, that the US government is the strong arm (agent of coercion) of the rebellion against God. The US government, of course, is not the only culprit in the world. The system of government of the US though asserts that whether or not one is born into citizenship, everyone will knuckle under the will of that system. That system though is designed to allow rulership, lordship, lording over, by the subversives.
As Jesus said, this is allowed from above; otherwise, they would have no authority over us. However, Jesus also alluded to the fact that the evil spirit vies against God in the spirit world of which we are a manifestation, being an image, a reflection, an actualization, a realm, etc.
So, the point is, which spirit is the right one for law and order. What is real law and order? What is truth, as Pontius Pilate asked. This is the question that the people must ask and to which they must obtain the answer.
How does this relate to the detainees above?
The Tipton Three, for instance, are certainly guilty of poor judgment. These three are two young men of Pakistani descend and one Bengali (Bangladesh) who, along with another of Pakistani descent who was apparently killed at the frontline, traveled as a foursome from their homes in England to Pakistan and then to Afghanistan and right to the frontline of the war between the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and al Qaeda in full knowledge of 9-11 and the efforts of the CIA and Pentagon to rain down on the Taliban and al Qaeda. They were swept up as prisoners of war, naturally.
They were treated as subhuman by both the Northern Alliance and the US. They were subjected to torturous interrogations and extended imprisonment in GuantÃ¡namo, Cuba. The US couldn't make the case that the three had been al Qaeda or had ever physically fought against the Northern Alliance or US or had even lent aid or comfort to the Taliban. In the end, the US released the three back to mundane freedom in England.
What is most important though is that all of this beats about the bush. None of it gets at the root cause. Once in a while, George W. Bush's handlers like to remind him to use the term "root cause." However, when he does, he is never referring to the root cause. The root cause is selfishness, greed, violence, depravity, willfulness against the spirit of love, peace, and truth that are the new commandment.
George and his handlers are never referring to the new commandment. You don't ever hear George W. Bush call for the people of the world to disarm and obey the new commandment, giving and sharing all in common, being good stewards of the earth and universe (now that they are planning to establish a permanent base on the Moon) or being good shepherds that is humble servants of each as all the blessed children of righteousness. No, you don't hear or see that. It would require that George and his circles live the new commandment.
Rather than get at the root cause to speak and live by the new commandment, the dark spirit brings forth the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
It is because of the issues raise in the Padilla case that the Military Commissions Act was written in a way that attempts to grant the president permanent martial law powers without a formal declaration of martial law or war and for the duration of the "long war" against ill-defined, vaguely defined, terrorism and terrorists and their supposed sympathizers and aiders and abettors—read antiwar dissenters of which all real Christians are members in full by definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter. – Military Commissions Act of 2006
Remember that under the Act, a defendant doesn't have a right to hear or see the supposed evidence against him or her or listen to the testimony against or to be faced by his accusers. Also, evidence obtained via torture may used against him. In addition, once in that system, Habeas Corpus does not really apply. Anyone (citizen or not) taken by the government may be then held indefinitely and incommunicado (disappeared in other words). The original authorization for going after al Qaeda becomes moot. It isn't any longer about who carried out 9-11. It's who's against the neocons. That is all raw fascism and inimical to the spirit of the law and to God. Woe to the nation and people who support it.
When the Patriot Act was up for renewal, Bush-43 said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted." It's a lie. Bush stretched the meaning of the words into utter falsehood.
"The Washington Post shows that 39 people, not 200, were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security."
The Bush administration deliberately avoids clarifying language when it makes its sweeping statements. Later, it justifies its language with excuses for why it deliberately leaves the public with false impressions based upon the original statement. It tells less than half-truths.
This doesn't mean that there haven't been people up to no good.
- Ahmed Abdel Sattar
- Ali Timimi
- Chao Tung Wu
- Iyman Faris
- Masoud Khan
- Richard Reid
- Shahawar Matin Siraj
- Zacarias Moussaoui
The US government could have focused solely on these people in making statements about thwarting terrorism.
- John Walker Lindh
Lindh was fighting in Afghanistan with the Taliban. The government doesn't know what Lindh's long-term objective was. They don't know whether or not Lindh would ever have carried the fight to US soil. We must remember that Lindh was with the Taliban before the US was against the Taliban. Was Lindh wrong to go to Afghanistan to be a member of the Taliban? Yes. The religion of the Taliban is a very bad choice. However, the religion of mammon worship, which is the religion of the majority of Americans, isn't better.
The Bush-43 administration and all the neocons hyped and still hype the case for their brand of vigilance. They exaggerate to make the case for things such as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act and now the drive for censorship on the Internet.
Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich has said, a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message."  Gingrich is unwaveringly against democratization (participatory, grassroots democracy—the only kind).
Gingrich also said that six Muslim Imams who were quietly praying in an airport during one of their five formal daily prayer times "should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists." Where is the basis for such a charge, "pretending to be terrorists." He's saying he knows their intent was deliberately to cause a problem. What about the other passengers? Weren't they really being disingenuous? Weren't they really just using the system to harass the Muslims? Evidently some were. If those men would have had to go to court to defend their right to pray, every single passenger should have been asked what he or her first impression was before the hysterics began by those who have fallen for George W. Bush's team of fear mongers—Gingrich being one of them and regardless of whether or not there is ever another attack on US soil.
After all, if there is an attack and it isn't another false-flag operation it will be due in large part to the unmitigated disaster that is the neocon movement. Only someone living under a rock doesn't know now that the US is hated more now in December 2006 than at any other time in its history. Even during the Vietnam War, the US was appreciated more. If it weren't for the dissenters in the US communicating around the world via the Internet and elsewhere, the US wouldn't even look like it stands a chance of being anything but a complete beast.
Now remember, the Republican neocons define terrorists to include anyone under the Military Commissions Act. That Act targets anyone the government wants to stretch the definition to include. In this way, the peace-church, pacifist, Quakers were even targeted for surveillance. Now they could be held for life without trial or even executed just for being against the neocons.
Down with the neocons!
Animal-rights activist are also targeted with a vengeance as are environmentalists. They are put on lists of (continued...click the next page number below)...continues... Click next page number below. [If you would like to see the full text on one page (helps with searching for text on the page), use the "No-Graphics Print Version".]
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)