Police state roundup!

By Joshua Holland
Created Nov 16 2006 - 8:38am

Let's see what we have in the hopper today ...

Via the AP [1], here's our first taste of how the Bushies see the imperial
powers vested in them by the Torture Bill, AKA the Military Commissions Act:

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on
suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian
courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in
the fight over the rights of detainees.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being
used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured
and held in the United States.

The government has always had the ability to hold foreigners suspected of
crimes, including terrorism, without trial. This is about denying those
prisoners the right to contest the factual basis of that detention in front
of a judge -- it's court-stripping. Now, the government just needs to say
you're suspected of terrorism without offering even a shred of evidence.
Habeus corpus, shmabeus shmorpus; message to the world: Just trust us.

Glenn Greenwald gives us a peek [2] at this new, improved and more
Kafka-esque judicial system with the case of one Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri,
a graduate student at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, where he lived
with his wife and five children:

In December, 2001 he was detained as a "material witness" to suspected
acts of terrorism and ultimately charged with various terrorism-related
offenses, mostly relating to false statements the FBI claimed he made as
part of its 9/11 investigation. Al-Marri vehemently denied the charges, and
after lengthy pre-trial proceedings, his trial on those charges was
scheduled to begin on July 21, 2003.

But his trial never took place, because in June, 2003 -- one month before
the scheduled trial -- President Bush declared him to be an "enemy
combatant" ... Thus, right before his trial, the Bush administration simply
removed Al-Marri from the jurisdiction of the judicial system -- based
solely on the unilateral order of the President -- and thus prevented him
from contesting the charges against him.

Al-Marri was given the "Padilla Treatment" -- kept in solitary
confinement, denied all contact with the outside world, including even his
own attorneys, not charged with any crimes, and given no opportunity to
prove his innocence.

That's exactly what Congress legitimized last month in the Torture Bill.

Whatever happens to detainees in the Long War Against Violent Extremism is,
of course, a closely guarded matter of national secrecy [3] (or, what
happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmo):

The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects
held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the
"alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to
talk.

The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods
are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that
their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably
be expected to cause extremely grave damage."

A bit of CYA, that. After all, a Fox News "reporter" recently gave
waterboarding a shot [4], broadcasting all the fine details to a worldwide
audience.

And while outgoing RNC Chair Ken Mehlman says [5] that Democrats have
"concern for terrorist civil liberties" (despite the fact that according to
all credible reports the majority of those caught up in our global network
of detention centers are not actually guilty of terrorism), many of us out
here in liberal-land are pretty darn frustrated that more Democrats aren't
talking about doing something about this. The reason? Politics [6]:

Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in
restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll
released Thursday suggests.

While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush
administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the
administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the
Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration
has not gone far enough.

According to an October Gallup poll [7], a slim majority (47-43) also don't
want the PATRIOT Act repealed.

I blame the media, who can't seem to get it through their little heads that
we have no idea whether people swept up by the Bush Administration and
denied due process are "terrorists," and can't seem to grasp the concept of
"Dearborn Syndrome."*

On Friday, the "Pentagon Five" go to trial. Who now [8]?

On September 9th, 2006 four Iraq veterans and an anarchist activist were
arrested whille taking a tour of the Pentagon for allegedly passing out
fliers on depleted uranium. The five are being charged with "Posting of
Materials" and "Disobeying a Lawful Order" and could be facing a $6,000 fine
and six months in federal prison.

Elsewhere, the ACLU is asking [9] a federal appeals court to uphold an
"Eastern Michigan District Court ruling on Aug. 17 that had stated the Bush
administration's warrantless National Security Agency wiretapping program
was illegal." Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to get a new domestic
surveillance bill through the lame-duck Congress [10] that would legalize
the whole shebang.

Speaking of terrorists, you may be one yourself if the "Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act" passes the House, as Nicole Belle explained at Crooks and
Liars [11]:

That's right, PETA is now a terrorist organization. In my college days, I
protested (along with other students) the biology department of my
university when some of the animal experiments they did and their treatment
of lab animals came to light. By this definition-so purposefully vague,
except for the use of the word "terrorist"-I would be considered a terrorist
for my participation.

Conflating "vandalism" with "terrorism" is all the rage at the right-wing
state advocacy group ALEC [12], which has developed model legislation
outlawing "eco-terrorism" as well, defined, of course, broadly enough that
it would [13] "effectively ban environmental and animal rights advocacy."

Who here believes we'll see a similar redefinition of terrorism for property
damage at abortion clinics?

[pause for obligatory sound of crickets chirping]

I guess vandalism is the least of their problems [14] anyway.

Let's see ...

Sara Robison notes:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a system which will
in essence make it mandatory for you to have permission before leaving or
entering the country, effectively putting everyone on a no-fly list unless
the government says otherwise.

Go read the whole post [15] for a troubling story of a marine who got on a
no-fly list because he had explosive residue on his combat boots -- imagine
that! -- and couldn't get his name off it. After he returned from a tour in
Iraq, airport security kept him from flying home for hours while they tried
to straighten the whole mess out.

While nothing has happened to the New Jersey public school teacher [16] who
told his kids they'd go to hell if they weren't Baptists, two Florida
substitutes were banned [17] from teaching in Lee County schools for
criticizing the district at school board meetings. Both had been on the job
for five years without complaint. The ACLU is looking into the case.

The New York CLU said [18] that a review panel that monitors allegations of
police brutality didn't meet for 6 months in 2005, creating a back-log of
800 cases. It then dealt with them all in a day -- a thorough case-by-case
review no doubt.

The NYCLU is also offering activists training [19] in how to request their
own files from the FBI, CIA, etc. A few years ago, I asked the FBI if they
had a file on me -- I wanted to see if an interview I had done with a Havana
radio station was on there -- and they came up empty. Later, I was
consulting with an ACLU attorney about suing the city of Miami for some very
nasty stuff that went down during the FTAA meetings in 2003 [20], and I
recounted the story to her. "Well, Honey," she told me, "you sure have one
now." Apparently requesting a file makes you a suspicious character and they
automatically start one for you if they didn't already have one -- and I
admit a certain logic exists there, even if it's perfectly circular.

We do have a few positive items ...

After a suit was filed by the ACLU, the CIA acknowledged [21] the existence
of two "torture memos" -- a pair of smoking guns that tie the White House to
the policy. They are, of course, "too sensitive to release to the public."
Maybe the German prosecutors preparing war-crimes charges [22] against Rummy
can get their hands on them.

Also, one of those small victories in Louisana [23]:

A court order issued Monday allows a man to protest in front of a Wal-Mart
store here, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana said.

Edwin Crayton was chased away by a Natchitoches police officer from the
front of the Wal-Mart store in early October when he tried to protest what
he believes is the company's stand on gays, according to the ACLU, which
filed a lawsuit on his behalf.

Let's go international to finish out the round-up, shall we?

From the department of So Fucking Obvious It Hurts, we get confirmation [24]
of what so many of us have been saying for so long:

Some countries try to refute criticism over their treatment of prisoners
by saying they are only following the U.S. example on handling terror
suspects, a U.N. human rights expert said on Monday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. investigator on torture, told a news conference
that "all too frequently" governments respond to criticism about their jails
by saying they handled detainees the same way the United States did.

He said nations like Jordan tell him, "We are collaborating with the
United States so it can't be wrong if it is also done by the United States."

Ugh.

That might explain why some geniuses in Queensland, Australia's Police
Service got the bright idea to test [25] the benefits of placing hoods over
prisoners' heads "to protect its officers." Appropriate outrage ensued.

Meanwhile, Bush's Poodle introduced his final legislative package [26],
which naturally included a host of new "anti-terror" laws:

Six home office bills - including new powers to combat serious and
organised crime - were unveiled today.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, lambasted
the legislative programme as "empty soundbites" which would erode civil
liberties.

"Not a word about allowing fair terrorist trials with the aid of intercept
evidence. Not a word about proper compensation for the victims of terrorist
atrocities abroad. Just more executive power and a little more freedom
ebbing away."

Richard Garside, the acting director of the Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies at King's College London, highlighted the "eye-watering" number of
crime-related pieces of legislation [Blair's] governments have introduced
since 1997.

All this seems to be making the Lib Dems a bit frisky [27]. Good for them.

Which brings us to the last item on our tour. A few weeks ago, Haaretz
reported on an Israeli Defense Ministry study it called "political
dynamite." It found "rampant illegal construction in dozens of settlements
and in many cases involving privately owned Palestinian properties," despite
a promise made that same month to Condi Rice, in writing, that Israel would
make halting illegal construction of Israeli settlements a top priority.

How did our government react to this news, you ask?

According to AIPAC [28], on the same day as news of the study became public,
the House unanimously passed a bill "opening new opportunities for the
United States and Israel to strengthen their joint homeland security
efforts."

The Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation
Act creates an office in the Homeland Security Department to develop and
share counterterrorism technology and strategies with U.S. allies, including
Israel.

The bill was led by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King
(R-NY) and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Emergency Preparedness
and Science and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert (R-WA) and
Ranking Member Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ).

The act authorizes private American and Israeli companies to receive
federal funding to jointly research and commercialize security products,
offers grants to scientists from U.S. and Israeli universities known for
high-tech ingenuity and provides funding for quasi-governmental
collaboration between federally funded laboratories and their Israeli
counterparts ...

Oh what joys there are in an endless war against "extremism."

If you see stories for the next round-up, e-mail 'em to me.

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson