On August 2nd, 1934 Paul Von Hindenburg died and chancellor Adolf Hitler became the absolute dictator of Germany, under the title of “Furor,” or “leader.” He assured his people that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years. It was going to be the beginning of a thousand years of peace. This is the same kind of “peace” that George W. Bush is promoting – if there is a war in the Middle East – war will bring about peace.
“Mankind has grown strong in external struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.” – Adolf Hitler
Of course Hitler’s Reich only lasted eleven years. The reason I think that that anniversary is of particular consequence is that the main way that Hitler achieved power, held power, and made his country insane, was by essentially setting aside the rule of law. People were driven insane, because they were followers of the insane personality cult of Hitler. The passage of the Enabling Laws (see: “Wake Up and Smell The Fascism", July 2nd) shortly after the Parliament building was burned by a 28 year old Dutch communist.
There is still debate about whether or not this man had help from Hitler’s guys – the brown shirts. He probably did. He had tried to set several buildings on fire prior to the successful attempt to burn the Parliament.
After this event, Hitler said, “There are enemies among us, and we have to change the law.” It was a tool that Hitler used brilliantly. He passed the Enabling Laws through parliament that said that the rule of law of democracy in Germany that had been set up after WWI would be modified. The government could now tap telephones without going through a court, if they thought it had to do with terrorism. You don’t have a right to a trial. You don’t have a right to face your accuser. The government could use hearsay against you. They could open your mail without a court order, and you could be held without charges without bail if you were suspected of terrorism.
These laws so concerned the German Parliament, that they put a four year sunset provision on them. In other words if the state of emergency passed, (i.e. the terrorist attack on the Parliament building) then the laws would expire. The parallels between the Enabling Act in Germany and the Patriot Act are absolutely spooky to anyone who has actually read and studied both of them.
Now the Bush administration wants to take it to the next step. This was in the Washington post on August 2nd, the anniversary of Hitler’s rise to power. I am amazed that this wasn’t a screaming headline on every newspaper and every network. It should have been everywhere, but I didn’t see it in any other newspapers that day.
In the Washington Post, buried on page 4, was an article by R. Jeffrey Smith, entitled
"White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts." It reads, “A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions…" (First of all, they are renaming these things. They are no longer courts. They are commissions.) “…to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.”
Do you get this? This is a draft plan of circulating around congress right now, around Republicans, saying, “We’re going to change the rules of the game. Yes, we’ve had this thing called the Constitution for 230 years, but time to throw that out the window. After all, it’s a post 9/11 world, and so we don’t need this ‘you have the right to face your accuser’ stuff. We don’t need this ‘you have the right to make bail.’ We don’t need this ‘you have a right to a speedy trial.’ We don’t need this ‘you have the right to know what you’re charged with.’ We don’t need this stuff.”
They want to apply the rules of Guantanamo to you and me!
“The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will…”
In other words, Donald Rumsfeld can simply make up a law. For example, he can say, “It’s now illegal to call George W. Bush a “dufus,” and if you break this particular law, you will be held before one of these “commissions.”
“The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said. The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.
Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.
Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.
John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: ‘We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty.’”
(This is the Navy’s top lawyer for the last three years of the Clinton administration.)
“Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.”
“…Administration officials have said that the exceptional trial procedures are warranted because the fight against terrorism requires heavy reliance on classified information…”
They can even prosecute you for hearsay obtained under torture.
Is this the end of democracy in the United States?
If you’re a peace activist, this story must give you pause, because permanent brand new prisons are already opening Guantanamo Bay, just for people like you.
From the UK Independent, July 30th:
“Camp 6, a state-of-the-art maximum-security jail built by a Halliburton subsidiary, will be able to hold 200 prisoners. Commander Robert Durand, a spokesman for Joint Task Force Guantanamo, said the $30m, two-story block was due to open at the end of September. He added: ‘Camp 6 is designed to improve the quality of life for the detainees and provide greater protection for the people working in the facility.’”
Welcome to Gitmo, Americans!
The “Gitmoization” of America
|
Posted By: Scott Manley Posted on: Aug. 11, 2006 at 6:24 AM |
4.0 / 5
Based on 5 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Aug. 11, 2006 at 05:58:36 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| "to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal" Is this the section that makes you think they are going to place Americans in it? I have read and re-read what you posted here and went to the link and I see no reason for concern about our personal freedom. They build big prisons all over this country every year. I should be more worried about Sheriff Joe's latest expansion... |
||
|
Aug. 11, 2006 at 06:11:40 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| Scott, I personally don't think enough can be written about this subject. While we fixate on terrorism as a frightening external threat to our Democracy, we forget that democracies fall much faster from within. I won't back away from the analogy. 9-11 is Bush's Reichstag, so what does that make Bush? On my list of Top Ten Threats to the United States, freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, and liberals are no where to be found. Fascism is right at the top. Keep shaking the trees: maybe a "herd of discontents" will fall out. (Sorry, couldn't resist throwing in a Crummism) |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 09:41:09 AM
|
||
| Really AA You read and re-read and that is the best you can come up with to be concerned about? Read it thinking that a Democrat could be in office. |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 03:08:33 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| It's true Indie, I see no need for panick in the streets over this. We build lots or detainment facilities every year as old ones are closed down.
|
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 04:02:26 PM
|
||
| AA, It is not the detention facilities per se, although that is part of it. Part of it is the fact that someone the Sec of Defense can "add crimes at will." That will allow folks to be arrested based on whatever Rumsfeld or any subsequent Sec of D decides is a crime. From Manley's article: "Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors. Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: ‘We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty.’” Now, think about that and the Padilla case. Remember that one? There was a great discussion about it on your joint appearance on VOAz radio program with MIC. |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 05:27:23 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| This would still apply to non-citizens. ANd like I told MIC that day, Padilla has a rap sheet four feet long, no kidding, four feet. This is not the guy you want to hang you "innocent being mistreated" arguement on. Padilla was charged after all. [link:en.wikipedia.org] I would not carachterize his incarceration as a travisty of justice nor an inconveinence (sp) during an otherwise heightened state of affairs. The man trained in Afganistan as a terrorist. You don't go through medical school and not practice medicine. You think he went there to learn survival techniques for hunting trips? A travisty would be those Japanese who lost their property and businesses during WWII when Roosevelt also in a heightened state of affaris locked them all up for more than a year. We made reparations to those folks although a little too late for many. |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 06:39:19 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| He's committed others crimes, and he looks like the kind of person that would do this one, so that's good enough for us. No need to apply the Constitution to this case, he's guilty 'cause we said so. I've heard about a time and place where Jews were rounded up for the same reasons. Seems like a good solution . . . finally. |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 09:38:01 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| You can not compare the two MIC; the Jews did not commit crimes in mass, this guy has been convicted under our laws many many times. You seem to forget that in all criminal cases your background or previous record leads to all kind of additional challenges for you, from the amount of bail that is set to the lenth of sentence if found guilty because you are a repeat offender. This guy was bad news prior to this latest terrorist conection. |
||
|
Aug. 13, 2006 at 11:05:26 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
|
| You seem to forget that this guy was convicted of other crimes, not the one for which he has remained uncharged and untried. Past unrelated offenses are inadmissable. Related offenses may be considered in establishing the accused's character, but not in suspending their right to a fair trial. An example would be a the consideration of past convictions of a prostitute in a case of suspected date raped. It is basic U.S. criminal law for the accused to stand trial for the crime that he or she is accused of, and not be subject to the double-jeopardy of presumed guilt based on any past convictions. During the penalty phase, after the accused is found guilty, the past offenses of the criminal may be considered when the sentence is handed down. This is also true in the pretrial phase when setting bond. If you throw out this basic jurisprudence, you turn criminal law on its ear, not to mention the Bill of Rights. It's a bad idea for a first-year law student to consider such a regressive and unconstitutional law, let alone a U.S. president. |
||







del.icio.us
Digg It!


You are correct in that this proposed bill got little play in the mainstream media, however, yours is the third article (by my count) that has been written about it here at V of AZ. Unfortunately, one was virtually ignored
[link:www.voiceofarizona.com]
and one was hijacked in the comments by changing the topic to a debate about the ACLU.
[link:www.voiceofarizona.com]
I did my darnest to get our resident conservative contributors to comment on the basic premise of the latter article, but to no avail.
I hope that you have better luck in getting them to comment.
Report Abuse