I'm reading Glenn Greenwald's piece in Salon magazine entitled, "Al-Marri and the power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," July 17, 2008.
Glenn has a keen mind. He cares deeply about issues of fundamental fairness. He's tireless in writing to champion his causes. I have yet to wholly disagree with any article of his I've read. I haven't seen them all of course. Now, please understand that when I read Glenn Greenwald, I read him realizing that he is not writing from a Christian standpoint but he is writing from a standpoint that he believes is righteous, especially relative to the neocons, and so it is.
Glenn is targeting the Bush administration and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for, as the title of this post states, assuming and granting the U.S. office of the president the legal right to hold even U.S. citizens taken on U.S. soil, who have not even stepped foot on foreign soil necessarily, and hold such citizens indefinitely as merely suspected enemy combatants pegged as such at the sole discretion of the president. Now, I totally disagree with this position. It is ripe for political abuse in the way the Soviets put political dissenters into psychiatric hospitals. However, the courts have said that the president may hold such people during hostilities. Their whole argument for one rests upon hostilities.
Here's the deal. The hostilities are not legal hostilities. They are illegal hostilities. The president can not have any such right no matter what when the hostilities themselves don't meet the standard for legality under U.S. and international law to which the U.S. is signatory.
I'm a U.S. citizen. I was born here. I suspect my family goes further back in the U.S. than does George W. Bush's, not that that matters to me in terms of standing up for the rights of human beings regardless of their status as U.S. citizens. The federal court has said that George W. Bush may, without supplying any evidence, order my arrest as a suspected enemy combatant and hold me in solitary confinement for the duration of hostilities that weren't even legally begun by the U.S.
The president could simply state that my opposition to the president's policies constitutes aiding and abetting the enemy. He could say that that means I meet his criteria for being deemed an enemy of the state, an enemy combatant not via overt violence but via propaganda designed to undermine the government of the United States.
This would all be right if and only if there is no longer free political speech in the nation to openly and publicly disagree with the policies and practices of the government. It will be right if and only if the U.S. rescinds its position and reverts to the divine right of kings and names the president not president any longer but monarch. It would be the end of the Republican form of government, much as happened under Julius Caesar, for which Caesar was assassinated.
It is a historical warning not to repeat the past.
I call George W. Bush's authority concerning these alleged enemy combatants tyranny. I call such a court and such a president tyrants. That's just based upon the mundane law too. If they are held to account under the divine law set down by Jesus Christ, they aren't to touch me or anyone else under any circumstances. Of course, they weren't to touch Jesus, but look at what they did to our Lord. Is there accountability and responsibility on this plane of existence and/or in the hereafter? I tell you there is.
The U.S. did not issue a formal declaration of war on terrorism. The so-called war on terrorism is unconstitutional. It is illegal. Furthermore, George W. Bush and his neocon allies lied to take the U.S. into the hostilities. George W. Bush did not take up the Taliban's offer to turn over Osama bin Laden. George W. Bush and his cronies committed a false-flag operation on 9/11 the degree of which has yet to be determined. George W. Bush and his cohorts have engaged in a cover-up of their crimes on all levels. They have engaged in numerous illegal, impeachable offenses, now aided and abetted by the courts and the legislature. George W. Bush obtained the office of president via illegal means (election fraud). He is not the legitimate president of the United States.
For these and other reasons, as stated in the title of this piece, the federal court is an idiot for declaring George W. Bush's actions legal. Charles Dickens would call the law "a ass" in this case. Furthermore, where are the defense attorneys putting forth all of these and other arguments?
The way to save everyone from the tyrants is to pull down the entire house, not by violence but by truth.
Here is more of the deal. Terrorism is not as defined by Bush for purposes of even applying this so-called law. Terrorism is a crime. It should be investigated and prosecuted as such. The first bombing of the World Trade Center was handled that way. That much of it was done correctly.
You can call any criminal entity deserving of being labeled an enemy. What group will be the next enemy combatants? What criminal category will next be moved over into the zone? The nation has had its war on poverty. Will it one day have an overt war on the poor? Will the president-cum-monarch decree all the poverty stricken a national security threat and round them up to not only detain them as enemies of the state but bury them alive, as the infamous lawyer John Yoo recently could not bring himself to say the president cannot legally do. Will the president simply waterboard them all to death, as the also infamous lawyer John Ashcroft could not bring himself to say is torture or illegal even if done to U.S. soldiers taken by so-called enemies.
Really, the U.S. is slipping way below the level of the law of the Roman Empire for Roman citizens. Even Paul was afforded an immediate hearing when he informed them that he was a citizen of Rome. The U.S. is slipping below even the level of law of the Nazis concerning its own soldiers. The Nazis would execute ten randomly chosen for each German soldier targeted by the resistance. No way would the Germans say that anyone could legally waterboard a German captive. Not that long ago, the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany were considered barbaric by American standards. What has happened in the U.S.? Who has come to power who didn't have it before that the U.S. has been running backwards? The answer is neocons.
I'm writing this as I read Glenn's post. I wrote the term Tyrant before I came to the end of his post where he too arrives at the exact same conclusion.
Let me go on clearly and plainly to warn the government of the United States. If the government of the United States continues down this path and eventually arrives at the place where it is rounding up U.S. citizens for political reasons and designating them as mere enemy-combatant suspects, no amount of dosing the people with sedatives and no amount of non-lethal weaponry will keep a lid on the situation.
The people won't act in ways that the government will be able to track regardless of the technology. The American people, many of them, are the descendants of those who put down the British Army of King George. They outsmarted them, and they out fought them. Espionage and sabotage works both ways.
Many of the very people trained by the U.S. military and intelligence will turn against the government unbeknownst to that government. People within the government will turn against the government while remaining secretly within it.
I do not advocate violence. Others do however, and the neocons are playing with the fire of civil war and revolution. If they have any brains, they will disavow George W. Bush's entire presidency. They will work to reverse his every order so as to put back every civil right previously enjoyed by the American citizen. Frankly, they will go much further than that and roll back everything that has been done since Richard Nixon to diminish the civil rights of the American people. They will go further than that and institute a voluntary government under the New Commandment. Now that would be truly smart, as Jesus Christ will tell you if you care to ask him.
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)