alan
Member
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
October 23, 2006
JPFO ALERT: Trading Liberty for Safety
"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary
safety deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
The response was predictable. After sending our alert last
Thursday regarding the passing of the Military Commissions
Act, we received a flood of email. Many were supportive,
but others took exception:
"Don't you care that terrorists want to kill us?"
"Olbermann's obviously a left-wing nut who wants
conservatives out of power."
"The act isn't that bad..."
It is bemusing to watch certain conservatives --
conservatives who once screamed that Bill Clinton was going
to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, and put
Americans in concentration camps -- blithely justify the
actions of a president who appears to be doing just that. A
president who once reportedly stated that the Constitution
is "just a [expletive] piece of paper."
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." (1)
Remember that phrase? When Clinton advisor Paul Bengala
spoke those prophetic words, conservatives were justifiably
outraged. How DARE the president unilaterally overturn the
Constitution of the United States! He has no right! What
hubris! Yet Bush's repeated infringements are quietly
excused as "necessary," and those who oppose him are
demonized as "liberal nuts" or "terrorist-lovers." Just as
those who opposed Clinton's treachery were demonized as
part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
"Bush won't misuse it. It'll only be used on terrorists,"
states one writer.
Okay, let's pretend that's true (historical evidence to the
contrary). In the early 1930's, in response to a recent
crime wave, the right-of-center Weimar Republic passed
several "vital, necessary" laws registering firearms and
prohibiting Gypsies from owning them. Five years later, a
left-of-center leader was in power and used those same
laws, amending them as needed, to consolidate his power.
The result was World War II and the murder of millions of
what the US might today refer to as "unlawful enemy
combatants."
Writes Joe Wolverton II, "Those who fail to see the dire
gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge
in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the
Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous
power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White
House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat
control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the
Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand
on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of
the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton,
Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?" (2)
Like most of this administration's recent legislation and
"signing statements," the MCA is a knee-jerk reaction, a
product of short-term thinking that will inevitably be used
for evil, just as the "vital, necessary" laws of the Weimar
Republic were.
"Olbermann's a liberal shill," writes another apologist.
Again, we'll assume that's an accurate statement. But what
difference does it make? Many notable conservatives (who
truly understand what "conservative" means) have stated the
same.
*In addressing the issue before a Senate committee,
Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate
General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, said: "I'm not aware of
any situation in the world where there is a system of
jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where
an individual can be tried without, and convicted without
seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the
United States needs to become first in that scenario." (3)
* Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee
is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him,
Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer,
stated: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that
an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the
government's evidence that was introduced was all
classified and the accused was not able to see any of it."
(4)
* The Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives
declared that the commissions established by the act do
"not comport with my ideas of due process." (5) (One
wonders why -- if this is the _Military_ Commissions Act --
the military is plainly none too happy with it?)
* Jim Bovard, author of the anti-Clinton book _Feeling
Your Pain_ , wrote a scathing commentary on the MCA, as
well as the mainstream yawn it engendered (6).
* So did the ultra-conservative magazine _The New
American_ which states, "The Military Commissions Act of
2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the
Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all
Americans, not just terrorists."(7).
* Arlen Specter (R) stated of the MCA, "I'm not going to
support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional . . . that
suspends a right that goes back to 1215..." (8)
* Even the platform of the Constitution Party -- hardly
a hotbed of liberal ideology -- states "We deplore and
vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that
deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating
terrorism" or "protecting national security." (9)
People often make the mistake of assuming that JPFO is a
conservative organization because of our support of the
Second Amendment. Not so; we're very much beyond that. JPFO
is _absolutely_ committed to the Bill of Rights. We have no
sacred cows, no party line to follow. Our only criteria is
"Does this infringe on the Bill of Rights?" If it does, we
react negatively, regardless of who is doing it. Keith
Olbermann is not our source -- the law is our source. And
this law clearly, unequivocably violates the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"You want to protect terrorists!"
Wrong. We want to protect people accused of terrorism (that
whole unfashionable "innocent until proven guilty" thing).
People have been unjustly accused by our government before,
after all (check out the John Glover case on our website
(10)). If the accused are indeed guilty, then punish them
appropriately. But everyone deserves the basic right to
defend himself in court...not to be locked away in a gulag
under some specious accusation.
"The removal of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens."
True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're picked
up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because without
the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to
court to make your case.
Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful enemy
combatant".
Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "unlawful enemy
combatant" as: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities
or who has purposefully and materially supported
hostilities against the United States or its co-
belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including
a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or
associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions
Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy
combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another
competent tribunal established under the authority of the
president or the secretary of defense. (11)
Note that this definition (much broader than previously-
used definitions) contains NO exception for American
citizens. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
previously upheld the UEC label as meaning you are no
longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights (12). All
the government would have to do at your habeas corpus
hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged in
some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization
"suspected of terrorist ties"...).
Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points out,
"How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant
ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn?t. Under the
Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is
limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have
the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their
detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately
upholds the ?unlawful enemy combatant? designation for
people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to
indefinite military custody as ?unlawful enemy combatants?
if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism
at the habeas corpus hearing." (13)
"At least Bush lets us keep our guns."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that
people have the ability to overthrow a government that has
become tyrannical. The fact remains that all firearms
permitted in the US must meet the "sporting purpose"
definition. Not all are well-suited for fighting a standing
army. Further, guns do little good when you cheerily
applaud the tyrant or make excuses for him. Guns, after
all, were prevalent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
The painful reality is that both parties have been
betraying us for years. They do not respect the
Constitution, nor do they respect our basic rights.
Conservatives who excuse Bush's actions have been duped
into remaining loyal to the ideal of conservatism even as
it is twisted into a nearly-unrecognizable mockery of
itself by the Bush administration.
A true conservative would say, "WRONG IS WRONG, no matter
who is doing it. And destroying our freedoms -- for any
reason -- is WRONG. I don't care who's doing it, this is
immoral and illegal. I'm not going to follow the party line
if it goes against everything I believe."
Perhaps the saddest, most telling comment comes from a
writer who states, "Arab and Iranian Muslims must be
exterminated. Any law that remotely points in that
direction is good. That you and the U.S. Government coddle
Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."
Does anyone fail to see the parallel between 1930's Germany
and our present society within this statement? To write
such a hate-filled declaration to a Jewish civil rights
organization -- one fully aware of the dangers of broadly
damning an entire race or religion and advocating their
"extermination" -- is breathtaking in its audacity. That
the writer is willing to give up his own freedoms and
liberty to further such a goal is perhaps saddest of all.
In closing, we offer this challenge: send us a link to a
video or thoughtful article that supports the Military
Commissions Act as legitimate and Constitutional. We'll put
it up, and let our readers decide.
- The Liberty Crew
(1) www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings012500.asp
(2) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(3) ibid
(4) ibid
(5) ibid
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yltvsz
(7) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(8) http://tinyurl.com/pekhj
(9) http://tinyurl.com/5lwep
(10) http://www.jpfo.org/hw-glover.pdf
(11) http://tinyurl.com/jrcto
(12) www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger105.html
(13) ibid
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
October 23, 2006
JPFO ALERT: Trading Liberty for Safety
"Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary
safety deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
The response was predictable. After sending our alert last
Thursday regarding the passing of the Military Commissions
Act, we received a flood of email. Many were supportive,
but others took exception:
"Don't you care that terrorists want to kill us?"
"Olbermann's obviously a left-wing nut who wants
conservatives out of power."
"The act isn't that bad..."
It is bemusing to watch certain conservatives --
conservatives who once screamed that Bill Clinton was going
to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, and put
Americans in concentration camps -- blithely justify the
actions of a president who appears to be doing just that. A
president who once reportedly stated that the Constitution
is "just a [expletive] piece of paper."
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." (1)
Remember that phrase? When Clinton advisor Paul Bengala
spoke those prophetic words, conservatives were justifiably
outraged. How DARE the president unilaterally overturn the
Constitution of the United States! He has no right! What
hubris! Yet Bush's repeated infringements are quietly
excused as "necessary," and those who oppose him are
demonized as "liberal nuts" or "terrorist-lovers." Just as
those who opposed Clinton's treachery were demonized as
part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
"Bush won't misuse it. It'll only be used on terrorists,"
states one writer.
Okay, let's pretend that's true (historical evidence to the
contrary). In the early 1930's, in response to a recent
crime wave, the right-of-center Weimar Republic passed
several "vital, necessary" laws registering firearms and
prohibiting Gypsies from owning them. Five years later, a
left-of-center leader was in power and used those same
laws, amending them as needed, to consolidate his power.
The result was World War II and the murder of millions of
what the US might today refer to as "unlawful enemy
combatants."
Writes Joe Wolverton II, "Those who fail to see the dire
gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge
in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the
Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous
power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White
House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat
control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the
Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand
on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of
the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton,
Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?" (2)
Like most of this administration's recent legislation and
"signing statements," the MCA is a knee-jerk reaction, a
product of short-term thinking that will inevitably be used
for evil, just as the "vital, necessary" laws of the Weimar
Republic were.
"Olbermann's a liberal shill," writes another apologist.
Again, we'll assume that's an accurate statement. But what
difference does it make? Many notable conservatives (who
truly understand what "conservative" means) have stated the
same.
*In addressing the issue before a Senate committee,
Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate
General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, said: "I'm not aware of
any situation in the world where there is a system of
jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where
an individual can be tried without, and convicted without
seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the
United States needs to become first in that scenario." (3)
* Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee
is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him,
Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer,
stated: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that
an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the
government's evidence that was introduced was all
classified and the accused was not able to see any of it."
(4)
* The Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives
declared that the commissions established by the act do
"not comport with my ideas of due process." (5) (One
wonders why -- if this is the _Military_ Commissions Act --
the military is plainly none too happy with it?)
* Jim Bovard, author of the anti-Clinton book _Feeling
Your Pain_ , wrote a scathing commentary on the MCA, as
well as the mainstream yawn it engendered (6).
* So did the ultra-conservative magazine _The New
American_ which states, "The Military Commissions Act of
2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the
Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all
Americans, not just terrorists."(7).
* Arlen Specter (R) stated of the MCA, "I'm not going to
support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional . . . that
suspends a right that goes back to 1215..." (8)
* Even the platform of the Constitution Party -- hardly
a hotbed of liberal ideology -- states "We deplore and
vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that
deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating
terrorism" or "protecting national security." (9)
People often make the mistake of assuming that JPFO is a
conservative organization because of our support of the
Second Amendment. Not so; we're very much beyond that. JPFO
is _absolutely_ committed to the Bill of Rights. We have no
sacred cows, no party line to follow. Our only criteria is
"Does this infringe on the Bill of Rights?" If it does, we
react negatively, regardless of who is doing it. Keith
Olbermann is not our source -- the law is our source. And
this law clearly, unequivocably violates the US
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"You want to protect terrorists!"
Wrong. We want to protect people accused of terrorism (that
whole unfashionable "innocent until proven guilty" thing).
People have been unjustly accused by our government before,
after all (check out the John Glover case on our website
(10)). If the accused are indeed guilty, then punish them
appropriately. But everyone deserves the basic right to
defend himself in court...not to be locked away in a gulag
under some specious accusation.
"The removal of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens."
True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're picked
up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because without
the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to
court to make your case.
Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful enemy
combatant".
Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "unlawful enemy
combatant" as: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities
or who has purposefully and materially supported
hostilities against the United States or its co-
belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including
a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or
associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions
Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy
combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another
competent tribunal established under the authority of the
president or the secretary of defense. (11)
Note that this definition (much broader than previously-
used definitions) contains NO exception for American
citizens. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
previously upheld the UEC label as meaning you are no
longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights (12). All
the government would have to do at your habeas corpus
hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged in
some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization
"suspected of terrorist ties"...).
Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points out,
"How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant
ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn?t. Under the
Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is
limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have
the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their
detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately
upholds the ?unlawful enemy combatant? designation for
people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to
indefinite military custody as ?unlawful enemy combatants?
if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism
at the habeas corpus hearing." (13)
"At least Bush lets us keep our guns."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that
people have the ability to overthrow a government that has
become tyrannical. The fact remains that all firearms
permitted in the US must meet the "sporting purpose"
definition. Not all are well-suited for fighting a standing
army. Further, guns do little good when you cheerily
applaud the tyrant or make excuses for him. Guns, after
all, were prevalent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
The painful reality is that both parties have been
betraying us for years. They do not respect the
Constitution, nor do they respect our basic rights.
Conservatives who excuse Bush's actions have been duped
into remaining loyal to the ideal of conservatism even as
it is twisted into a nearly-unrecognizable mockery of
itself by the Bush administration.
A true conservative would say, "WRONG IS WRONG, no matter
who is doing it. And destroying our freedoms -- for any
reason -- is WRONG. I don't care who's doing it, this is
immoral and illegal. I'm not going to follow the party line
if it goes against everything I believe."
Perhaps the saddest, most telling comment comes from a
writer who states, "Arab and Iranian Muslims must be
exterminated. Any law that remotely points in that
direction is good. That you and the U.S. Government coddle
Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."
Does anyone fail to see the parallel between 1930's Germany
and our present society within this statement? To write
such a hate-filled declaration to a Jewish civil rights
organization -- one fully aware of the dangers of broadly
damning an entire race or religion and advocating their
"extermination" -- is breathtaking in its audacity. That
the writer is willing to give up his own freedoms and
liberty to further such a goal is perhaps saddest of all.
In closing, we offer this challenge: send us a link to a
video or thoughtful article that supports the Military
Commissions Act as legitimate and Constitutional. We'll put
it up, and let our readers decide.
- The Liberty Crew
(1) www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings012500.asp
(2) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(3) ibid
(4) ibid
(5) ibid
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yltvsz
(7) www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(8) http://tinyurl.com/pekhj
(9) http://tinyurl.com/5lwep
(10) http://www.jpfo.org/hw-glover.pdf
(11) http://tinyurl.com/jrcto
(12) www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger105.html
(13) ibid
