Mar 172013
 

How can America impose democracy on Iraq, when democracy is dead in America?

 By R.Kanis

A Canadian Citizen

 

The American media, in a classic war of lies, is caught with a red herring. For days American Press headlined stories that got more press than Saddam Hussein, namely the American persecution of the Dixie Chicks. In mass hysteria to support George Bush’s genocide of Muslims, the press was determined to destroy the Dixie Chicks.

To quote from the American Rolling Stone;

 “Out of some 2,100 country stations in America, maybe five or six boycotted the Chicks, and most of them only for a day or two as a publicity stunt,” says Albright, singling out a bulldozing of Chicks CDs by Shreveport, Louisiana, station KRMD that drew an estimated 200 to 400 listeners. “A station can get that many people at any remote broadcast from a car dealership. It was very underwhelming, almost laughable.”

This is only one example of how America no longer tolerates freedom of speech, or publicly standing up for what you believe in. Freedom in America, is under attack, its on a decline faster than the bombs that fall on Baghdad. Its not only freedom of speech that is on death row in America, freedom itself is on death row.

The famed Statue of Liberty should be sent back to France if you are to follow the mentality of the US lawmakers as shown below.

CNN – Thursday, March 13, 2003

Earlier this week, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, ordered that House restaurants change their menus to read “freedom fries” instead of French fries. French toast would also become freedom toast.

“I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today,” Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars. 

Below are a few examples that show American is not an example of a Democratic Government, but rather it borders becoming a dangerous dictatorship and the next evil empire with an ego that is reminiscent of Hitler’s Supremacists.

 

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 20, 2003;

An ironic rule was in force as Justice Antonin Scalia accepted a free speech award from a Cleveland public affairs organization yesterday: At the justice’s insistence, no video or audio recorders were allowed during his speech.

 

March 20, 2003

BY ZAY N. SMITH SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

News Item: “The government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday.”

 

03/19/03

C-SPAN, the cable television network popular with political junkies and insomniacs, is outraged that the City Club of Cleveland has banned broadcast media from covering today’s speech by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

ABCNEWS reported on March 18, 2003, that “the government will begin detaining dozens of suspected Saddam Hussein sympathizers in at least five U.S. cities this week.”

 

Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly “Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can’t do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.

Senator Lindsay Graham had asked Attorney General John Ashcroft “to provide him with a legal assessment of those Americans headed to or already in Iraq to offer themselves as ‘human shields.'” Graham compared Americans acting as human shields with John Walker Lindh.

“It is my opinion that any American who voluntarily engages in conduct to impede a potential American military operation, and who thereby endangers the lives of our nation’s men and women in uniform, is participating in a program designed to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully. I strongly believe efforts to impede a potential military operation against Iraq should be strongly dealt with and I am seeking your assistance in this matter.”

 

New York Sun ran an editorial referring readers to Article III in the Constitution which says, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” The editorial suggested that “‘anti-war’ protesters – we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq – are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.”

 

CNN Washington Bureau

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Posted: 6:08 PM EST WASHINGTON (CNN) — The FBI will detain about three dozen Iraqis in the United States who are considered sympathetic to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or who are deemed a threat to Americans, government officials said Wednesday.

 

Between 1917 and 1919, Congress passed legislation aimed at suppressing all forms of dissent.

The Espionage Act of 1917 made it a crime punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 20 years in jail to “convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal to duty.”‘

 

Read Section 3 of the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 carefully:

“Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements… or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct… the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or… shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States… or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully… urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production… or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.”

 

A mid-March report by United Press International pointed out that “The most contentious provisions in the draft [of Patriot Act II] would allow the government to collect DNA from suspected terrorists or other individuals involved in terror investigations, and the power to revoke the citizenship of, and deport, naturalized citizens suspected of terror activities or of providing ‘material support’ to terrorist groups.”

 

This nation . . . has no right to expect that it always will have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. . . . [If] the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. —United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, declaring Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and other abuses of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.

In 1771, Sam Adams wrote in the Boston Gazette: “Power makes men wanton . . . it intoxicates the mind; and unless those with whom it is entrusted are carefully watched,” such men will not govern the people “according to the known laws of the state.” How intently will Congress be watching?

American intelligence agents have been torturing terrorist suspects, or engaging in practices pretty close to torture. They have also been handing over suspects to countries, such as Egypt, whose intelligence agencies have a reputation for brutality. —The Economist, London, January 11, 2003

 

The Washington Post report by Dana Priest and Barton Gellman dutifully quotes National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack: “The United States is treating enemy combatants in U.S. government control, wherever held, humanely and in a manner consistent with the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.” (Emphasis added.) Note the phrase “wherever held.” Prisoners shipped to torturers in other countries remain under American control.

One official directly involved in these “renditions” to foreign torture chambers said in The Washington Post, “I do it . . . with my eyes open.” According to the Post, another “Bush administration official said the CIA, in practice, is using a narrow definition of what counts as ‘knowing’ that a suspect has been tortured. ‘If we’re not there in the room, who is to say?’ said one official conversant with recent reports of renditions.”

The government has taken the position that with no meaningful judicial review, an American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel on the government’s say-so. —American Bar Association Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, Preliminary Report, August 8, 2002

 

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. —James Madison, Federalist Papers, 47

On October 24, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and 18 other human rights groups, plus a coalition of 139 law professors, submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals charging that “the detention of American citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi is unconstitutional.” Reading the brief, keep in mind that the Bush administration has plans to set up “enemy combatant” detention facilities for other American citizens (Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2002).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Federal District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, Robert Doumar “This case appears to be the first in American jurisprudence where an American citizen has been held incommunicado and subjected to an indefinite detention in the continental United States without charges . . . and without access to a lawyer.” Hamdi, in his windowless room in the floating navy brig, has yet to meet his lawyer, Frank Dunham Jr.

The Toronto Star, March 1, 2003. President Bush has authorized and approved assassinations, summary executions and murders — and boasted of them, in his State of the Union message in January. “All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate … let’s put it this way, they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies.”

Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, November 29, 2002;NEW YORK — Arguing that this city faces a far more perilous world than once imagined, New York’s police commissioner wants to toss aside a decades-old federal court decree governing the limits on police spying and surveillance of its own citizenry.

National Review Online

November 26, 2002, Domestic detention of non-citizens: Soon after 9/11, about 1,200 non-citizens were detained in secret without evidence linking a single one of them to al Qaeda. The recurring questions were pretty basic. How many remained in custody? Who were they? What were the charges against them? What was the status of their cases? Where and under what circumstances were they being held? The Justice Department adamantly refused to provide any answers. Secret INS trials: Hundreds of deportation hearings have been held in secret by the Immigration and Naturalization Service — without a jury, and without access by the defendant to legal counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit accused the INS of operating “in virtual secrecy in all matters dealing, even remotely, with national security.” The court warned, “Democracies die behind closed doors.”

 

 

 

The date posted here is due to our website rebuild, it does not reflect the original date this article was posted. This article was originally posted in Yonip on Mar 20th 2003

 

 

o2wbanner

To view more articles in this category click on the Image

   

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.