|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
THE CREEPING COUP |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sam Smith. The Progressive Review
(No verified email address) |
14 Nov 2001
|
Presidential Coup?
Bush Has Done What Terrorists Cannot--Destroyed Our Rights |
In a stunning affront to democracy and the Constitution, George Bush has unilaterally ordered preparations for military tribunals to try not only non-citizens alleged to be terrorists but those who might aid and abet them. The definition of terrorism, who is a terrorist, and who is aiding and abetting terrorism are now exclusively within the jurisdiction of the same government that intends to hold military kangaroo trials to judge its own decisions.
The media has falsely spread the impression that non-citizens are not covered by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is explicit where it refers to citizens but makes no exceptions in defining other rights. For example, the Sixth Amendment reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
With this grossly anti-American order, for which the president should be impeached, Bush has taken the country a major step towards full dictatorship. All that remains is to make it applicable to citizens as well.
The media, as usual parroting the words of the White House, has given the impression that it's all okay because Abraham Lincoln did it. Well, what Lincoln did was absolutely wrong as the Supreme Court later decided. We have run a longer than normal excerpt from its decision because of the importance of this issue and the shoddy media reportage. The conclusion should be especially noted:
"It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war." |
See also:
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm
|
|
War On Your Rights |
by Sam
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2001
|
 |
|
|
