|
FREE WEBSITE
THROUGHOUT
Welcome to Desert Journal Online, established in May 2001 in New Mexico. Our website
offers our true crime book,
Satan's Den Exposed - The David
Parker Ray Story, and poetry and photo collections,
Bombshell
Liberation and
Interference, and provides free access to
our featured columns, photos and news archives.
Directory Page
Site Map |
|
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ THESE!
|
|
2012 began in 1999
by Peter Appleseed
of the Kyyboa Tribe
Book about true revolution, civilogy and creating positive alternatives. |
|
Satan's Den Exposed
The David Parker Ray Story
True crime book about a
criminal sexual sadist and cohorts busted in kidnap, rape and sexual
torture cases in New Mexico
By the Desert Journal's award winning investigative reporting team of Bill
Johnson, Fred Mramor & David Pierre
SPECIAL OFFERS EXTENDED
CLICK
HERE
FOR DETAILS!
|
|
CLICK ON THUMB TO SEE LEO DAILEY PERFORM
HIS NEW ROCK SONG, rallytime!
ALSO, SEE OUR NEW WEB PAGE
ANTI-WAR SONGS!!!
VISIT LEO DAILEY'S NEW WEBSITE -
www.LeoDailey.com |
|
BOMBSHELL LIBERATION
&
INTERFERENCE
Poetry & Photo Collections
By Leo Dailey
NEW RELEASES OCTOBER 2006!!!
Electronic Books - $2.95 each ($2 off)
For details, click
HERE!
 |
|
 |
|
FOR FREE CLASSIFIED ADS, CLICK
HERE! |
|
Desert Journal Online
Contact Information
Bill Johnson
Editor, Publisher & Webmaster
Vic Arvizu
Honorary Web Guru
-
-
Electronic mail
-
desertjournal@hotmail.com
desertjournalonline@yahoo.com
poet@leodailey.com
-
Location
-
We are an electronic
submissions only website located in Albuquerque, NM, and have no
physical business address.
-
-
Copyright ©
2001-2008 Desert Journal Online
-
Last modified:
October 1, 2008
|
| |
|
|
|
Columns,
Commentaries & Reviews |
|
Food For
Thought
Constitutional
Restoration
By
Van Velsor
The April 2004 issue of The ecologic
Powerhouse, journal of the Paragon Foundation based in Alamogordo, NM,
arrived just the other day. As
always, it carries some excellent articles.
Laura Schneberger’s article,
“Ranching… On The Front Lines,” was an update on the tactics the
U.S. Forest Service is using to force the Laneys off their land and
steal their livestock.
But the article that attracted my
attention in this issue was the one by Chuck Baldwin entitled, “The
Most Important Legislation in the Last Fifty Years.” This article concerns House Resolution 3799, which recently
was introduced in The Congress. A
companion Bill S. 2082 was introduced in the U.S. Senate also.
According to the promoters of these
Bills, they would prohibit the federal judiciary from interfering with
any expression of religious faith, such as the recent federal court’s
objection to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also, and this is particularly
disturbing so I will quote the article.
Section 201 of this Bill states, “In interpreting and applying
the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may
not rely on any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order,
directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign
state or international organization or agency, other than the
constitutional law and English common law.”
The problem I have with this is that
federal judges who come up with decisions like refusing to allow school
children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the
phrase “under God,” and who, like Justice Sandra Day O’Connor,
prefer to base his or her legal decisions on the Supreme Court based on
some foreign or international laws, are not following the Constitution
they swore an oath to uphold.
If these judges refuse to operate
within the limits of the United States Constitution, what would make
anyone believe that they would pay any attention to a new law?
Supposedly HR 3799 and S. 3082 would
somehow force federal judges to operate within the Constitution.
If they won’t pay any attention to the Constitution, there is
no reason to believe they will pay any more attention to yet another new
law.
There is already a mechanism to control
federal judges. Quoting
part of Article III Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, “The Judges,
both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during
good Behavior…”
Subverting or ignoring the Constitution
can in no way be considered “good behavior.”
The mechanism here is, of course, when federal judges cease to
operate and make their decisions within the limits of the United States
Constitution, they are subject to and should be REMOVED FROM THE BENCH.
This has not happened often enough.
And it’s Congress’ place to do it.
There are many, many instances where
the judiciary has not made decisions consistent with the Constitution
and they are not alone. The
Congress is guilty of the same thing and so are many of the State
Legislatures.
One glaring illustration of an illegal
act by the State legislature is the 1911 Sullivan Act in the State of
New York. This nefarious
“law” supposedly changed the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, as
guaranteed by the Second Amendment, to a privilege and attached a fee to
it (license).
This so called “law” not only
violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the U.S. Supreme Court
decision Murdock v Penn. 319 U.S. 105 (1943) and many others.
How could all this come about in the
“Land of the Free” where We the People are sovereign?
I am going to try to explain how and
why this all came about. There
are those who will pooh pooh this explanation and perhaps even label it
some kind of “conspiracy theory: DO NOT take my word for any of it, do
some digging and look it up for yourself.
History has shown that Great Britain
and the Rothschilds, who own and control the bank of England, were never
satisfied with the outcome of our Revolutionary War and resulting
independence. Alexander
Hamilton was one of the main instigators of the first American central
bank. The fledgling United
States had no money of its own, to speak of, so the money came from the
European bankers. The first
central bank was not in the interest of the United States and it was
scuttled when President Andrew Jackson refused to renew its Charter.
This was after our War of 1812 with Britain.
Contrary to public belief, the War
between the States was NOT fought primarily to free the slaves.
This war was fought as a further effort by the international
bankers to gain control of the United States.
It was during the confusion following this war that the original
Thirteenth Amendment illegally was eliminated from our Constitution and
subsequently replaced by the current Amendment XIII.
The original Thirteenth Amendment
concerned titles of nobility, already mentioned in the Constitution in
Art. I Sec. 9, and was meant to strengthen Clause 7 of that Section.
What really started the ball rolling
for the international bankers was the creation of the Federal Reserve
System (Fed) in 1913. There
are many excellent accounts of the treachery and fraud perpetrated
against We the People of the united States of America in reference to
the enactment of the Federal Reserve System, which is NEITHER federal
nor a reserve of any kind. One
of the best is a 488-page book, “The Unseen Hand,” ISBN
0-9614135-06, by A. Ralph Epperson.
Subsequent to the creation of the Fed,
We the People were subjected to an income tax.
While the income tax of Sixteenth Amendment fame may not be
unconstitutional in itself, the way it is administered IS.
Amendment XVII was another fraud
perpetrated against the American people.
It provided for popular vote of Senators, thus eliminating
representation in Congress for the States.
By 1933 the Fed owned and operated
largely by foreigners with the aid of World War I, succeeded in
bankrupting the Unites States government.
We the People and the States themselves were NOT bankrupt.
A few greedy individual speculators in the stock market were
broke and some even committed suicide, but by and large the only entity
that was bankrupt was the federal government.
However, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, probably at the direction of
those same international bankers, approached the States and coerced or
enticed all 48 of them to join the bankruptcy.
Now comes the fun part.
When the federal government went bankrupt its creditors were the
international bankers who owned the Fed and it went into receivership.
That meant that the Fed (international bankers) now controlled
the government.
The government was instructed to cease
operating as a Republic and become incorporated, which it did.
The States, because they had joined the bankruptcy, all became
sub-corporations of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INCORPORATED.
It should be apparent from the above
what has happened to our Republic and its Constitution.
As a corporation, the United States government operates like any
other corporation. The Congress is nothing but a Board of Directors following
the leadership of the CEO, the President, who gets his orders from the
stockholders, or the owners of the Fed (international bankers).
The same holds true for the States.
As sub-corporations of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
INCORPORATED, they have their own Boards of Directors (legislature) and
CEO (governors) who get their instructions from the parent corporation.
This should explain why the central government pays no attention
to the Ninth or Tenth Amendments or any other part of the Constitution,
for that matter.
It is interesting to note that shortly
after the bankruptcy of 1933 the heads of States were assembled and they
were told to make the State Patrol or State Police in each State roving
patrols, rather than just bodyguards for the governor.
This in effect has overridden the constitutional authority of the
County Sheriff – more fraud!
Again I admonish the reader DO NOT take
my word for any of this, look it up for yourself.
Doing so will accomplish two things.
First it will educate you as to what is really going on in this
country today.
Second, by your asking questions, it
puts the politicians on notice that We the People have begun to WAKE UP!
If enough of us wake up, they won’t be able to lie to us
anymore.
While you are looking things up, you
may want to look at something called the UCC, the Uniform Commercial
Code. You may recall the
quote from Chuck Baldwin’s article mentioning “constitutional law
and English common law.”
While the legal system in this country
originated based on English common law, it has been illegally replaced
with the UCC. This falls
right in with the corporate structure and even though Section 1-207 of
the Code allows a person to reserve his common law rights, most courts
will not allow it (more illegal activity by the judiciary).
There are a couple more things that you may want to consider
while you’re looking things up.
There is a group of Globalists called
the Bilderbergers. David
Rockefeller is one of the founders of that group.
Here is a direct quote by Mr. Rockefeller to that group of
Globalists, “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York
Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have
attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for
almost 40 years.
“It would have been impossible for us
to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright
lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march
towards a world government. The
supranational sovereignty of an INTELLECTUAL ELITE AND WORLD BANKRES is
surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past
centuries.” (emphasis mine)
Another quote you may be interested in
is by Rolland Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation, who said in
1954 to Norman Dodd, who was an investigator for the Congressional Reese
Commission, “We operate here under directives which emulate from (come
from) the White House… The
substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use
our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that we can
comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.”
You might want to secure a copy of the Communist Manifesto.
The Constitution WILL NOT be restored
by passing still more “laws.” If
it is to be restored, it will be because We the People DEMAND IT.
This writer welcomes comments or
criticism concerning this column. Comments
may be sent to me in care of the Desert Journal, P.O. Box 215, Truth or
Consequences, NM 87901.
<<<
>>>
(posted
4-30-04) |
|
|
Rio
Grande a legacy
of
environmental changes
River
ecosystem requires restoration
Op-Ed
by Jim Steitz
of
the Southwest Environmental Center
The rapid growth of Las Cruces and other
metropolitan centers in New Mexico has brought much prosperity to our
state, but with this prosperity has come profound changes to our natural
environment.
Over the decades, a number of
engineering works have tamed, modified, and otherwise curtailed the
natural features of our landscape to meet human needs.
Nowhere is this more evident than in
the Rio Grande, which has been reduced to a shadow of its former extent.
The little-known International Boundary and Water Commission,
which manages the physical river channel south of Caballo Reservoir, has
recently acquired a new Commissioner, Arturo Duran, who will inherit the
challenge of restoring an imperiled river.
Duran and the IBWC will have the unique
opportunity of bringing back the living history and heritage of the
lower Rio Grande.
The simplest impact human settlement
has had upon the Rio Grande is the diversion of water for urban use and
for agriculture. However,
the physical form of the river itself has been profoundly changed to
meet human demands of flood control and a stable river channel.
The so-called "Canalization
Project," managed by the IBWC and encompassing a number of
engineering works such as dredging and levee construction between
Caballo Reservoir and the American Diversion Dam near El Paso, has
physically transformed the lower Rio Grande into an ecologically sterile
canal, rather than a living, breathing ecosystem.
Much of this reach has little of its former curves and meanders,
and now approximates a straight line.
Like its better-known counterparts in
the Interior West, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers,
the IBWC historically has focused on engineering an efficient waterway
that minimizes flooding and efficiently delivers water, as well as
maintaining a stable international boundary.
In the process, however, the Rio Grande
has been completely separated from its floodplain, and the streamside
forests and wetlands of the historic Rio Grande have been almost
completely eliminated.
Levees, concrete, and closely-mowed
vegetation are now found where cottonwood forests, marshes, and meadows
once stretched like a ribbon along the river.
Under commissioner Duran, the IBWC
faces the challenge of reversing some of the well-intentioned but
ultimately harmful projects of years past.
Fortunately, rivers are resilient
ecosystems, and can be restored. The
IBWC is currently rewriting its management plan for the Canalization
Project.
The Southwest Environmental Center and
other river advocates are calling on the IBWC to move beyond the
dredging, levee construction and maintenance, vegetation cutting, and
other practices that are keeping the Rio Grande as little more than a
glorified drainage ditch.
We envision a reinvigorated Rio Grande
that functions as a renewed and restored asset to the Paso del Norte
region, and is embraced as a part of the communities that line its
course, rather than cordoned off and viewed only at a distance from
highway overpasses.
Conservationists also have the goal of
working with local irrigation districts to develop a "water
bank" of water rights that can be acquired from willing-seller
irrigators, and used to put more water back into the Rio Grande.
With higher average and wet-season peak
flows, the Rio Grande can once again begin transporting its sediments,
flush away exotic vegetation, and create new sediment banks where
cottonwoods and other native vegetation can take root.
For any of this vision to materialize,
citizen voices are needed to encourage the IBWC to move outside the
traditional conceptual box of short-term engineering solutions to
long-term ecological problems.
The Rio Grande must be allowed to
reconnect ecologically to its floodplain, and we must use means besides
levees and concrete to protect the human settlements that have developed
in the river's former corridor.
We also support the proposals advanced
by Think New Mexico to develop a "bank" of water rights,
purchased or leased from willing sellers, to ensure sufficient flows for
ecological restoration through the Rio Grande.
The IBWC's management of the lower Rio
Grande channel will be a vital component of this restoration.
The decisions to soon be made by the
IBWC will set the course of the Rio Grande for years to come, and no
citizen of southern New Mexico and western Texas will be immune from
these decisions.
In many ways, the health of the Rio
Grande thirty years from now will closely mirror the health of our
relationship with the Earth in this fragile and arid region today. The Rio Grande is ours to recover or lose.
Please let your voice be heard to the IBWC.
<<<
>>>
(posted
12-11-03)
|
|
|
The
Wall West
By
Alan Hodgkinson
“If you are able, save a place
inside of you and save one backward glance when you are leaving for the
place they can no longer go...” - Major Michael Davis O'Donnell, 1
January 1970, Dak To, Vietnam
As soon as the mortar dried on the brick walkway in front of
the recently completed Vietnam Veterans Memorial, people came.
The ever-increasing line of visitors, sometimes thousands a day,
surprised most everyone. This
new monument in Constitution Gardens, Washington, DC, otherwise known as
The Wall, wasn't even designated as a National Park until two years
later. And it was a tribute
to those who fought and died in the most divisive war in our country's
history.
But in time, it became evident that no single monument in the
history of this country had been received by such a large number of
visitors in such a short period of time.
From every corner of the nation, surviving family members, war
buddies, friends from high school, acquaintances, the general public...
They all came.
And in time, they began to come from around the world.
I made an appearance among those pre-National Park visitors on a
cool early morning in 1983. At
that early, weekday hour, I shared The Wall with only one other person.
The lady who looked to be in her mid thirties stooped with one knee
to the ground, aiming a large lens camera at one of the names.
I occasionally glanced in her direction about 50 feet from where I
stood, wondering if she was having trouble working the camera because
she had been aiming it for so long.
Later, I walked to the other end of The Wall. Before I stepped
around her, as she partly blocked my way, I couldn't help but look to
her face from the side.
She had an eye to the camera lens. Her hands that held it were motionless. The only indication of movement in fact was not from the
person, I noticed at last, but rather of tears that ran down her cheeks.
The design is genius - two noble slashes of shiny granite recessed
into the earth - an artistic understatement - beautiful in its
simplicity as Maya Ying Lin had planned.
She designed the walkway to gradually incline into earth from both
directions to the middle panels so that you arrive at a quiet,
protective place - a park within a park.
At closer inspection the awesomeness of it all sinks in.
You not only begin to understand the magnitude of this one of a
kind tribute to the American soldier as you stand in your own
reflection, gazing up and down, back and forth, at the thousands of names including their dates of
deaths or whether they are MIAs - 58,325 names in rank and file military
style precision, regally etched in rare black granite, but you become
immersed in its implications.
As I stood before a panel that reached only several feet overhead,
but seemed to tower far into the sky, I found the name of one of my
buddies from 4th Platoon.
This was our first meeting in 15 years.
Running my fingers across his name - to include his middle name I'd
never known - and staring at the less than quarter inch deep letters
digitally carved into the abraded stone, I suddenly felt as if I were at
my friend's grave.
If you, like me, believe strongly that a place where your friends
and loved ones are buried is sacred in the way the Native Americans
honor their sacred burial grounds, you know how I felt.
But no one is buried at The Wall.
I wondered about the countless others who visit here and what
they experience in their own very personal way - people from countless
walks of life and religious persuasion.
Do they think of The Wall as a final resting place?
If so, how can a memorial aspire to such sanctity?
Years later, on one of my regular visits to The Vietnam Veterans
Memorial on Veterans Day, I overheard a small boy ask, "Where are
they buried daddy?"
He looked down at the bricks beneath his feet, to The Wall, then
around himself. I didn't
hear the father's hushed reply, but if he answered the boy's question
correctly, he told his son that the veterans were buried in graves all
over the country.
In some instances, their bodies are still at the place they were
killed or held captive in some trackless reach of Mekong Delta jungle or perhaps the mist shrouded Highlands of
Vietnam.
But that boy's question got me to thinking about my related
questions and thoughts turning around in my mind - and led me to putting
it all in perspective.
The Wall, of course, is not a sacred burial grounds, but a sacred
memorial grounds. In my
mind, this is a final place of rest for those dozens of guys in my
Company.
They are united in memory, once and for all, not only with the
other guys in their unit, but with every single individual who fought
and died in that war.
I can't think of a more honorable and appropriate setting, or a
more perfect gathering place for those who want to come pay their
respects.
Now, the only permanently placed replica of The Wall in the world,
The Wall That Heals - the City of Truth or Consequences’ very own
version of that incredible tribute to the American soldier - has gone
from a patch of earth on the edge of town to a sacred memorial grounds.
From this Nam vet, I want to thank all those with the city who
worked so hard to bring it here, and all those selfless volunteers,
generous people and organizations who gave contributions and anyone else
who came forward in what ever large or small way to make it a reality!
Note: The Vietnam
Veterans Memorial Park has become the most visited memorial in
Washington DC, with annual visitors now counted in the millions.
About the author: Alan Hodgkinson, a Vietnam Veteran, is author of After
Incoming that is about Vietnam combat veterans and is a local
resident of Sierra County, NM.
<<<
>>>
(posted
11-4-03, revised 11-7-03)
|
|
|
|
Patriot
Act - The Antithesis
of
America’s Liberty & Civil Rights
Editor's Note:
This is the text of the keynote speech by Gene Franchini, retired chief
justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court, at the New Mexico Foundation
for Open Government's (FOG) annual dinner honoring outstanding
supporters of open government with the William S. Dixon First Amendment
Freedom Award, named for the late First Amendment, civil liberties and
open government attorney.
By
Gene Franchini
Retired
Chief Justice of the NM Supreme Court
Secrecy in a democratic government is the
antithesis to all that a representative democracy stands for. It keeps
the people in the dark and destroys any opportunity they may have to
speak out for or against any governmental action.
When access to governmental activity is
denied or restricted in any way and access to the opportunity to observe
that activity is stopped - Democracy dies. It's just that simple.
For if this is truly a country of, by
and for the people, then the people must be informed if they are
expected to act. The people have the right to know.
But what is it that we the people have
the right to know? Certainly we have the right and need to know the
truth. What's really going on?
We have the right and need to know the
true facts about governmental activity. We also have the right to demand
that. But unfortunately, we usually don't.
The dark space between ignorance and
knowledge more often than not is filled in this day of instant
communication with stories, spins and opinions of those with no
knowledge or expertise and out and out mis-directions and fabrications.
Do we have a right to know mis-directions and fabrications?
I believe that we actually have a right not to.
This organization's main interest
should be a continuing battle to have access to all areas of
governmental action and to expose, when they recognize it, the stories,
spins, mis-directions and opinions without basis for what they are and
what they create: The illusion that the people really know what's going
on when they really don't.
In this time of instant communication
it can be most difficult to separate the wheat from the sheaf.
More often than not, I'm afraid, the separation is made for us by
others and the sheaf is what is usually distributed.
The foundation's mission becomes more
difficult because if the sheaf is distributed and emphasized rather than
the truth, it's usually too late to do anything about it once we
recognize it for what it is. What's
worse, it is a violation of FOG's most basic principal.
The public's right to know becomes the
public's right to know nothing.
Another more destructive form of
deception today is the selling of Fear.
Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions.
A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything,
reject anything if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his
family's or his country's security and safety whether it actually
accomplishes it or not.
It works like a charm. A fearful people
are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away
and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own
good, to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their
liberty - voluntarily.
Recently the passage of the USA Patriot
Act and Homeland Security Act have resulted in the most direct attacks
on the Bill of Rights that I have seen in my lifetime. These acts were
passed without any meaningful opposition and still have considerable
public support.
The USA Patriot Act is an acronym for
Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools
Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
The way that government is going to be
provided with these "appropriate tools" is to
"temporarily" suspend or eliminate as much of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights as it can, without court oversight or
intervention so that we will not be at a disadvantage in the war against
terrorism. That's the idea.
Think about that for a minute and then
ask yourself, why in the world would we voluntarily do to ourselves that
which our enemies over the last 200 plus years have not been able to do
to us by force? Why would
we be so willing to give up our God-given rights that have been
verbalized in our Constitution when we have fought so hard to preserve
them?
It almost boggles the mind when one
considers what fear for one's safety and security can accomplish.
These bipartisan, virtually unopposed
legislative governmental actions are saying to us, "If you
temporarily give up some of your liberty and freedom now, you will be
made more secure in the future." That, my friends, is a terrible
lie.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin,
"One who trades his freedoms for security, deserves neither."
I might add, that person will finally lose both.
The people have a right to know what
their government intends to do about the war on terrorism and that
includes all of its branches - including the Judicial Branch.
In a time of war, actual or threatened,
our courts have, in my opinion, repeatedly abdicated their function of
equally interpreting and applying the constitution, bowing instead to
"national security." The most horrible example was when the U.
S. Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during the
Second World War because the government claimed they were a security
threat.
It took Congress some 50 years to
attempt to rectify that horrible opinion.
Did we learn anything? I'm
afraid not. Today with this unending war on Terrorism our government has
taken steps again to radically infringe upon the right to counsel,
reasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy and fair trial and
other fundamental liberties, for fear of losing our security.
We can hope that eventually the U.S.
Supreme Court will subject these infringements to real constitutional
scrutiny. Unfortunately the
courts have historically yielded to wartime fears and claims that our
security interests would be jeopardized.
Those prior wars ended before long and
when they did, the country regretted the fact that it had abandoned the
Constitution, even temporally.
This war on Terrorism is different.
It's a war on an old idea. One that has been used for hundreds, if not
thousands, of years.
It is a horribly destructive idea, but
history has shown that you can't kill an idea, however horrible, by
killing those who have it. You
kill or replace an idea only by coming up with a better one.
So far we haven't really tried to come up with a better one.
No one can even guess how long this war
will last. In the meantime,
Americans as well as aliens have been harshly affected by governmental
measures after 9/11.
The attorney general of the United
States had more than 1,000 aliens detained, keeping their names and
location secret. There are
over 600 left at Guantanamo in Cuba. He ordered many deportation
hearings in secret. He required visitors from 25 countries, mostly
Muslims to register with the government and if they didn't within 40
days they were subject to arrest, detention and deportation.
No public trials, no lawyers, all in
secret in the name of preserving security. For example, one American
citizen, Yasser Hamdi, was found under unexplained circumstances on a
battlefield in Afghanistan. He
was classified as an "enemy combatant," a new term, which the
government created to give it the power to seize and hold even American
citizens indefinitely without counsel or trial and without any effective
review of the courts.
He was totally isolated and not allowed
to see a lawyer. He was not charged with any crime. However difficult,
lawyers came forward and were eventually allowed to defend Mr. Hamdi.
They immediately challenged his detention on constitutional grounds.
Specifically, that this American was denied his right to counsel, his
right to know the charges against him, the right to face his accusers
and his right to as fair and speedy trial.
The Federal Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals sidestepped the Constitution and ignored Mr. Hamdi's
constitutional rights as an American. Its holding: This defendant, an
American citizen, classified as an "enemy combatant" does not
have a constitutional right to counsel or trial because "Mr. Hamdi
was not being prosecuted."
The government, therefore, can impose
solitary confinement, indefinitely, by simply avoiding charging the
defendant and giving such a defendant a lawyer or trial. If this isn't a
violation of the Sixth Amendment, Mr. Hamdi at the least has certainly
been deprived of liberty without due process of law.
James Madison, the principal author of
the Bill of Rights, must be spinning in his grave.
Most Americans would be shocked, I
think, if they realized that they could be classified as an "enemy
combatant," taken off the street, imprisoned indefinitely and not
be given the opportunity to call a lawyer.
But you can, my friends, at least one federal appellate court has
established that precedent.
Since 1990, this organization [FOG] has
had a single mission, to help the general public, students, educators,
public officials, media and legal professionals understand, obtain and
exercise their First Amendment Rights, as well as their rights under the
New Mexico Open Meetings Act and Federal Freedom of Information Act.
The First Amendment is most important
or it would not have been the First.
But please don't forget the other nine, which together with the
First compose the Bill of Rights, the foundation of this nation's
greatness and the real source of our security.
If the present situation lasts for a
generation as well it may, together with its formidable and direct
attempt to restrict or eliminate the Bill of Rights in the name of
security, then the next generation may not even remember what their
rights were.
There won't be anyone around to
remember them or remind the next generation what they were. They may say
that they eliminated or restricted them for your own good and beside,
your forefathers and mothers voluntarily gave a lot of them up a
generation ago.
So what is FOG's mission?
I think its prime purpose is to keep the public informed. To keep
the government open and to preserve for the public their right to know.
Its mission is to remind the people
what has made this nation the greatest on earth, especially why they
should care, as well as why and how they can continue to preserve the
Constitution and its magnificent Bill of Rights.
Those first 10 amendments to the U.S.
Constitution are the real foundation for our freedom and liberty, our
foundation for real security. It is the fundamental law which has made
us the land of the free and the home of the brave. We have been that for
over 200 years. Let's keep
it that way.
<<<
>>>
(posted
9-19-03)
|
|
Click
on links to see:
Continue
Columns & Reviews
Editorial
Page Letters
to the Editor
Home
Page
|
| |
|
