Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Exit Habeas Corpus, Enter Night and Fog
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
sky of mind
Another Day in the Empire
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=612


Exit Habeas Corpus, Enter Night and Fog
Tuesday October 17th 2006, 8:47 pm



As if to confirm that Republicans are indeed a fascist rabble, consider their uniform silence in regard to the military commissions bill, otherwise known as the monstrosity that ate the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 9, dealing with habeas corpus.

Republicans, who are primarily neocons, that is to say fascist authoritarians, consider themselves patriots, and yet almost to the man and a few women they have not said a word about the evisceration of habeas corpus, once considered such an elemental liberty it was the only one enumerated in the original text of the Constitution.

The elimination of habeas corpus, a bedrock right going back to 1215 and the Magna Carta, did not even as much as merit a passing mention on the Drudge Report, probably one of the most popular Republican web sites on the internet.

Instead, if we are to believe Drudge, Republicans are interested Madonna going to Africa and adopting babies. The sanctimonious Hillary, who voted for killing habeas corpus with nary a blink, wearing a small diamond-studded cross warrants an all caps link, but the death of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not. And oh, incidentally, Matt Drudge feels it is important you know the mother of Chris Rock was discriminated against at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in South Carolina. All the insipid and meaningless news fit to print, but not a word about the end of our once cherished republic.

Republicans, and no shortage of Democrats, have sold you and me down the river to a place where we can be abducted, tortured, and killed in secret, no different than the unfortunate desaparecidos of El Salvador. How long before we suffer our own Operation Condor, as did the people of Chile, Argentina and Uruguay? How long before we go through our very own Nacht und Nebel, or Night and Fog?

Lately, a few people have told me I use the Nazi example too much, but what happened today, with the unitary decider signing away our long-standing right to not be held by the state without a day in court is a perfect match for what happened in Nazi Germany after the Reichstag Fire Decree. In fact, the Night and Fog decree is a near perfect example, as the Nazis used it to disappear the political opposition. Hitler and his minions would not be bothered by what they considered unnecessary rules, so they grabbed all who organized to oppose them.

“After lengthy consideration, it is the will of the Führer that the measures [be] taken against those who are guilty of offenses against the Reich,” declared SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. “Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminals do not know the fate of the criminal. The prisoners are, in future, to be transported to Germany secretly, and further treatment of the offenders will take place here; these measures will have a deterrent effect because: A. The prisoners will vanish without a trace. B. No information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate,” decreed Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel.

Considering the mindset of the neocons, who have so far slaughtered over 600,000 Iraqis, our disappeared may very well suffer the fate of political dissidents during Argentina’s “Dirty War”: forced to jump out of airplanes far out over the Atlantic Ocean, but not before enduring torture. Argentina’s los desaparecidos were never found, simply disappeared into Night and Fog, and thus, without bodies, the government denied they had been killed. In this way, between 1976 and 1983, up to 30,000 dissidents were liquidated.

“Disappearances work on two levels: not only do they effectively silence those opposition members who have disappeared, they also sow uncertainty and terror in the wider community in general, thus silencing other opposition voices, current and potential alike,” explains Wikipedia. “Disappearances entail the violation of a series of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. For the disappeared person, these include the right to liberty, the right to personal security and humane treatment (including freedom from torture), the right to a fair trial, to legal counsel, and to equal protection under the law, the right of presumption of innocence, et cetera. The families, who often spend the rest of their lives in searches for remains of the disappeared, also become victims of the disappearance’s effects.”

If you think the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was crafted strictly for aliens and foreign Muslims, think again.

It was devised to go after the opposition in this country, as it presents more of a challenge and threat to the neocon order than a handful of Arabs.

As citizens begin disappearing into the night and fog, will Matt Drudge continue posting meaningless articles about Madonna?

Matt Drudge and faithful neocon-wannabes of all stripe need to take heed and bone up on a bit of history. Although it will likely irk my readers who believe I use the Nazi example a bit too much here, the example of Hitler’s Reichsmordwoche, or Nacht der langen Messer, Night of the Long Knives, should serve.

On the night of June 30 and Sunday July 1, 1934, Hitler ordered potential political rivals in the Sturmabteilung massacred. Stalin had his Great Purge and “river of blood,” culminating in the assassination of Trotsky. Invariably, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, unable to withstand even minor disagreement, take out not only the opposition, but allies who may, however tenuously, become the opposition of tomorrow.

Bill O’Reilly should take note.


ResistanceInOceania
keep a copy of the constitution before they burn them all
sky of mind
QUOTE(ResistanceInOceania @ Tuesday, 17 October 2006, 11:21 pm) [snapback]76054[/snapback]

keep a copy of the constitution before they burn them all



wont do any good to keep a copy if they don't honor it, accept for nostalgia.
WhichTruth
And The are so blatant about ignoring the Constitution. This law is retroactive, yet the Constitution reads "no ex post facto laws."

Olberman did a great piece on this bill.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Ol...abeas_1011.html
rexateyfor
So where were you on the day freedom died?
Jubal
The "Great Writ" is approximately 750 years old. It pre-dates the Constitution by a long chalk, and is perhaps the single most powerful statement in human history that the law is higher than authority, higher than force, higher than politics. Where there is no habeas corpus, the rule of law does not obtain.
ResistanceInOceania
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 1:31 am) [snapback]76055[/snapback]

wont do any good to keep a copy if they don't honor it, accept for nostalgia.


Nope, Those are Inaliable rights. It is the law of the land. They CANNOT take those right from you unless you let them. We are the kings and queens of this nation
sky of mind
QUOTE(ResistanceInOceania @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 11:18 am) [snapback]76118[/snapback]

Nope, Those are Inaliable rights. It is the law of the land. They CANNOT take those right from you unless you let them. We are the kings and queens of this nation




Educate me?

Truth or not, they CAN take them away from you, and they may very well already have!
ozamerII
where is Franz Kafka when you need him?
WhichTruth
QUOTE(sky of mind @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 12:24 pm) [snapback]76132[/snapback]

Educate me?

Truth or not, they CAN take them away from you, and they may very well already have!



The best defense of our rights is to exercise them. The more of us who exercise them the stronger they become. Enough of us need to stand together. We stand up now or it's over.


Pleas help me retire my upside down flag cap. To do that we have to get our Constitutional Government back.
Max-1
QUOTE(WhichTruth @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 2:36 pm) [snapback]76140[/snapback]



The best defense of our rights is to exercise them. The more of us who exercise them the stronger they become. Enough of us need to stand together. We stand up now or it's over.


Pleas help me retire my upside down flag cap. To do that we have to get our Constitutional Government back.
EXACTLY.

It is the LAWS that provide Americans their security. Take away those laws, restrict our use and access of those laws and we are no longer as secure. This is the message that many do not see. That many do not understand. That because many do not have to exorcise these rights, they fail to conceptualize what the very laws' use are for, until it is they that need the protections that which they fought to do under.

Gadzooks!
So someone please tell me...if a person is approached on the street, or at his home or place of work by two men in civilian clothes who refuse to show any identifying credentials and tell him he is being detained, to shut up and accompany them, can he assume he is being kidnapped by criminals and resist to the point of violence, or must he assume they are agents of his government and go meekly into the night? And what is the ultimate difference, if neither is obligated to tell him why he is being taken, where he is being taken, or offer legal recourse?
sky of mind
QUOTE(Gadzooks! @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 7:15 pm) [snapback]76178[/snapback]

So someone please tell me...if a person is approached on the street, or at his home or place of work by two men in civilian clothes who refuse to show any identifying credentials and tell him he is being detained, to shut up and accompany them, can he assume he is being kidnapped by criminals and resist to the point of violence, or must he assume they are agents of his government and go meekly into the night? And what is the ultimate difference, if neither is obligated to tell him why he is being taken, where he is being taken, or offer legal recourse?




I don't know about the law, but I would resist in anyway available to me.
I don't know from jack who these clowns are, and I'm not gonna ride along!
I'd rather be in a court defending why I didn't go along. At least then I'd know who they were.

Good point there Zooks. Technically what you described is now legitimately possible.
Gadzooks!
The feds may come to regret the pols taking all that money from the NRA to keep handguns cheap and available. A number of years ago, New York attempted to make sales of hard drugs a capital offense. Haha! Big mistake. Dealers quit going along quietly, and started shooting back. It didn't last. I don't support hard drugs, buying, selling or using. Nor do I support terrorism. But I don't support that kind of stupidity, either.
Max-1
Who knew that our Nostradamus would be Orwell?
Abell9
QUOTE(Gadzooks! @ Wednesday, 18 October 2006, 9:15 pm) [snapback]76178[/snapback]

So someone please tell me...if a person is approached on the street, or at his home or place of work by two men in civilian clothes who refuse to show any identifying credentials and tell him he is being detained, to shut up and accompany them, can he assume he is being kidnapped by criminals and resist to the point of violence, or must he assume they are agents of his government and go meekly into the night? And what is the ultimate difference, if neither is obligated to tell him why he is being taken, where he is being taken, or offer legal recourse?


What you just decribed is an instant showdown. SO contrary to what Americans expect. With many states having "carry permits", anyone think the gun laws are going to be repealed?
Jubal
QUOTE
So someone please tell me...if a person is approached on the street, or at his home or place of work by two men in civilian clothes who refuse to show any identifying credentials and tell him he is being detained, to shut up and accompany them, can he assume he is being kidnapped by criminals and resist to the point of violence, or must he assume they are agents of his government and go meekly into the night?

Technically, if they haven't identified themselves as law enforcement, you have the right to assume they are criminals and respond accordingly.

As a practical matter, they'll claim they did identify themselves, and add "resisting arrest," "assaulting a Fed (10 years for that one)," and charges for whatever actual damage you do to the Feds in question.

This is hardly new. Non-white people know all about it.
happymisanthropy
QUOTE(Jubal @ Thursday, 19 October 2006, 3:58 am) [snapback]76231[/snapback]

Technically, if they haven't identified themselves as law enforcement, you have the right to assume they are criminals and respond accordingly.

As a practical matter, they'll claim they did identify themselves, and add "resisting arrest," "assaulting a Fed (10 years for that one)," and charges for whatever actual damage you do to the Feds in question.

This is hardly new. Non-white people know all about it.



As a practical matter, you'd be dead. But maybe you could take a couple with you.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.