http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project
The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed "terrorists" on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted "aiding and abetting" a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was "material support". Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied "material support" to the terrorist organization.
And remember, the Executive can designate individuals or groups as terrorists without any recourse to silly things like facts or trials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arar_v._Ashcroft
Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen, was extraordinarly renditioned (read: kidnapped) by US officials. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture. He was cleared of all terrorism charges by the Canadian government.
Arar's attempt to sue then Attorney General Ashcroft was dismissed using State Secret privileges and on unspecified national security grounds. Subsequent courts have upheld this ruling and the Supreme Court has ignored all petitions to try the case.
I really wish I could say this was a surprise. :argh!:
I fucking hate my country sometimes.
Ok, I read the opinion. I can agree that the first ammendment isn't necessarily dominant here. But what about the fact that this was legal advice?
Do you have a goddamn excuse for that Roberts? :argh!:
ahgddkihawge'lkhaw'kgeha'oieghagoaihtg'awoeut'aekg/laskgdjdasg HORRORMIRTH heee HEEEEEEEEEE
Quote from: Requia ☣ on June 24, 2010, 08:44:14 AM
Ok, I read the opinion. I can agree that the first ammendment isn't necessarily dominant here. But what about the fact that this was legal advice?
Do you have a goddamn excuse for that Roberts? :argh!:
Yes. It is now illegal to give legal advice ("Expert advice") to a terrorist or terrorist organization. The law in which that was embodied was supposedly intended to keep banking and explosives advice, for example, but wasn't worded that way. ANY "expert advice" counts.
Oh, yeah, Obama's nominee to SCOTUS avidly supports that law.
Typical Greyfaced BS. :argh!:
Looks like I'll have to advance my self-sufficient bunker plan by a few years now.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:00:09 PM
Typical Greyfaced BS. :argh!:
Looks like I'll have to advance my self-sufficient bunker plan by a few years now.
And miss all the fun?
Also, google "Ruby Ridge".
Elena Kagan is like a legal opinion vaccuum. In fact, the only thing I can say for sure she believes is in almost unfettered executive power.
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 04:01:12 PM
Elena Kagan is like a legal opinion vaccuum. In fact, the only thing I can say for sure she believes is in almost unfettered executive power.
I remember reading some spag named Cicero, who bitched about this shit 2060 years ago. :lulz:
And look how he ended up.
At least nowadays he'd have the chance to build an explosive vest, gather some nails and glass, and go down fighting. This sentence has been defaced for National Security reasons.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:00:09 PM
Typical Greyfaced BS. :argh!:
Looks like I'll have to advance my self-sufficient bunker plan by a few years now.
And miss all the fun?
Also, google "Ruby Ridge".
Best thing to learn from this is to not associate with wackos like the Aryan Nations. I had someone suggest that my associates and I style ourselves an "out-of-work Private Military Corps", as private "militias" are technically illegal, no?
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:00:09 PM
Typical Greyfaced BS. :argh!:
Looks like I'll have to advance my self-sufficient bunker plan by a few years now.
And miss all the fun?
Also, google "Ruby Ridge".
Best thing to learn from this is to not associate with wackos like the Aryan Nations. I had someone suggest that my associates and I style ourselves an "out-of-work Private Military Corps", as private "militias" are technically illegal, no?
Google "Ruby Ridge".
Reading the Wiki article now. Sounds like a bunch of "whoopsies" on the part of the government that led to the ruining of a life that just wanted to be left alone.
It makes one wonder: how /does/ one do it right? Because it seems like the feds fucked with this guy until they finally had a chance to shoot him.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:20:17 PM
Reading the Wiki article now. Sounds like a bunch of "whoopsies" on the part of the government that led to the ruining of a life that just wanted to be left alone.
It makes one wonder: how /does/ one do it right? Because it seems like the feds fucked with this guy until they finally had a chance to shoot him.
"Whoopsies". :lulz:
He went square. They pounded him into a round hole.
That's usually fatal.
The problem with private military companies is you normally have to work either for actual militaries for a while, or at the very least in the most militarized aspects of the police state (SWAT etc) for at least five years. That's the trusted industry standard. Anyone who has worked less is usually considered to be much more dubious, and so normally wont win contracts. Assuming other companies are not in fact already intelligence fronts or run by state intelligence assets, as we know several are.
Also mercenaries are just as exposed to the visscitudes of state power as anyone else. Google "the conspiracy of La Magione" for an historical example. Now, most leaders, at least in the Western world, are nowhere near as clever or ambitious as Cesare Borgia, but they can usually afford to hire someone who is.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 04:21:59 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:20:17 PM
Reading the Wiki article now. Sounds like a bunch of "whoopsies" on the part of the government that led to the ruining of a life that just wanted to be left alone.
It makes one wonder: how /does/ one do it right? Because it seems like the feds fucked with this guy until they finally had a chance to shoot him.
"Whoopsies". :lulz:
He went square. They pounded a round hole into him. Several times.
That's usually fatal.
Fixed.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 04:21:59 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:20:17 PM
Reading the Wiki article now. Sounds like a bunch of "whoopsies" on the part of the government that led to the ruining of a life that just wanted to be left alone.
It makes one wonder: how /does/ one do it right? Because it seems like the feds fucked with this guy until they finally had a chance to shoot him.
"Whoopsies". :lulz:
He went square. They pounded a round hole into him. Several times.
That's usually fatal.
Fixed.
Either way. :lol:
That's why I would seal myself off, like in a Vault from the Fallout series. A Vault (minus the gerbil-esque social experiments) would be pretty much perfect.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:27:08 PM
That's why I would seal myself off, like in a Vault from the Fallout series.
And that's precisely why they'd go after you.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:27:08 PM
That's why I would seal myself off, like in a Vault from the Fallout series. A Vault (minus the gerbil-esque social experiments) would be pretty much perfect.
Would this vault have access to air?
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 04:30:37 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:27:08 PM
That's why I would seal myself off, like in a Vault from the Fallout series. A Vault (minus the gerbil-esque social experiments) would be pretty much perfect.
Would this vault have access to air?
Also, food. Then there's the actual construction of it. Why are there so few mad scientists plotting to take over the world? Oh, yeah...Because those secret bases are EXPENSIVE.
Well, if it had no access to air, it would be perfectly safe, just not useful for very long. On the other hand, if it did, then it'd be time to drop the airborne weapons we sold to Saddam but totally don't build anymore, no siree.
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 04:35:14 PM
Well, if it had no access to air, it would be perfectly safe, just not useful for very long. On the other hand, if it did, then it'd be time to drop the airborne weapons we sold to Saddam but totally don't build anymore, no siree.
And if there's filters, just pour a few tanker trucks of gasoline down the intakes, and let nature do its thing.
But why? Excuse my naivete, but is it so wrong to just want to be left alone?
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:46:53 PM
But why? Excuse my naivete, but is it so wrong to just want to be left alone?
Because. People who can be self-sufficient are dangerous, since all power is ultimately based on, aside from coercion, the provision (and threat of removal) of services, and people who want to be "left alone" are living outside of the Officially Approved Ideological State Structure and thus present a valid, and potentially attractive alternative to existence in Fat City. Without people to tax and services to provide, the state can only rely on its coercive powers which, as we have seen lately, are not as fantastic as they'd like you to believe (though they'd still squash the unprepared or lone individual like a bug).
The system is just insidious. The futility of it all is just staggering. They hide behind well-meaning people to get their agenda across.
Zyz is starting to catch on...
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 04:57:11 PM
Zyz is starting to catch on...
Well, I /did/ sip the RAW kool-aid enough to paraphrase what he said in book two of Illuminatus!: "No matter who is running the machine, it will always turn out the exact same product." Essentially, we can have a million Mother Theresas running the US Federal government and the structure will produce the same damn thing as if it were run by a million Hermann Goerings.
My deceased grandfather was right. "The state has become more fascist (in 2006) than I've ever seen in my life (of 77 years)."
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 04:46:53 PM
But why? Excuse my naivete, but is it so wrong to just want to be left alone?
Ever run from a dog?
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:01:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 04:57:11 PM
Zyz is starting to catch on...
Well, I /did/ sip the RAW kool-aid enough to paraphrase what he said in book two of Illuminatus!: "No matter who is running the machine, it will always turn out the exact same product." Essentially, we can have a million Mother Theresas running the US Federal government and the structure will produce the same damn thing as if it were run by a million Hermann Goerings.
My deceased grandfather was right. "The state has become more fascist (in 2006) than I've ever seen in my life (of 77 years)."
Well, we must
like it, right? I mean, if we didn't, we wouldn't
pay for it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:01:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 04:57:11 PM
Zyz is starting to catch on...
Well, I /did/ sip the RAW kool-aid enough to paraphrase what he said in book two of Illuminatus!: "No matter who is running the machine, it will always turn out the exact same product." Essentially, we can have a million Mother Theresas running the US Federal government and the structure will produce the same damn thing as if it were run by a million Hermann Goerings.
My deceased grandfather was right. "The state has become more fascist (in 2006) than I've ever seen in my life (of 77 years)."
Well, we must like it, right? I mean, if we didn't, we wouldn't pay for it.
It's that feeling of entrapment, of
knowing without doubt that the promise of liberty is a lie. Freedom is not free, we have to work to maintain freedom but honest labor for one's own self interest no longer exists. Why can't I be a dirt farmer in Appalachia without being inbred (and thus incapable of seriously harming the government due to genetic irregularity) or being put on a government watch-list for daring to fend purely for myself? Becoming aware of the limitations just makes me champ at the bit even more fiercely.
Some light reading for you Zyzyx:
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/ (read as far back as the archives go)
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ (ditto)
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:19:25 PM
It's that feeling of entrapment, of knowing without doubt that the promise of liberty is a lie. Freedom is not free, we have to work to maintain freedom but honest labor for one's own self interest no longer exists. Why can't I be a dirt farmer in Appalachia without being inbred (and thus incapable of seriously harming the government due to genetic irregularity) or being put on a government watch-list for daring to fend purely for myself? Becoming aware of the limitations just makes me champ at the bit even more fiercely.
Balls. I'm free. Or kill me.
And I didn't have to build a big vault to get that way.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:19:25 PM
It's that feeling of entrapment, of knowing without doubt that the promise of liberty is a lie. Freedom is not free, we have to work to maintain freedom but honest labor for one's own self interest no longer exists. Why can't I be a dirt farmer in Appalachia without being inbred (and thus incapable of seriously harming the government due to genetic irregularity) or being put on a government watch-list for daring to fend purely for myself? Becoming aware of the limitations just makes me champ at the bit even more fiercely.
Balls. I'm free. Or kill me.
And I didn't have to build a big vault to get that way.
Just needed two fingers, one on each hand, held upright.
I realize the whole "mountain vault" thing is a pipe dream, a fantasy. Hard to convey sarcasm over text.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 06:21:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:19:25 PM
It's that feeling of entrapment, of knowing without doubt that the promise of liberty is a lie. Freedom is not free, we have to work to maintain freedom but honest labor for one's own self interest no longer exists. Why can't I be a dirt farmer in Appalachia without being inbred (and thus incapable of seriously harming the government due to genetic irregularity) or being put on a government watch-list for daring to fend purely for myself? Becoming aware of the limitations just makes me champ at the bit even more fiercely.
Balls. I'm free. Or kill me.
And I didn't have to build a big vault to get that way.
Just needed two fingers, on on each hand, held upright.
THIS.
Patrick Henry didn't cower in a hole. He spat in the hangman's eye, and snapped the buckles of his shoes off in the asses of pansy Tories.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 06:28:08 PM
I realize the whole "mountain vault" thing is a pipe dream, a fantasy. Hard to convey sarcasm over text.
Yeah, well, you can build a vault in your head, too. Most people do, as a matter of fact.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that attempting to look the truth in the eye sucks as it's not comfortable and nice, but it's something I feel I have to do anyway.
Currently on April '08 in that antifascist-calling blog. Riveting, blood-boiling stuff.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 07:09:43 PM
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that attempting to look the truth in the eye sucks as it's not comfortable and nice, but it's something I feel I have to do anyway.
Strange, because it seemed that you were actually trying to at least metaphorically burrow under the ground.
Now that I can see that's not the case, welcome to being a Doktor. Truth is ugly, horrible, never noble, and usually covered in gore and bits. But it's the only thing worth having.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 07:09:43 PM
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that attempting to look the truth in the eye sucks as it's not comfortable and nice, but it's something I feel I have to do anyway.
Strange, because it seemed that you were actually trying to at least metaphorically burrow under the ground.
Now that I can see that's not the case, welcome to being a Doktor. Truth is ugly, horrible, never noble, and usually covered in gore and bits. But it's the only thing worth having.
Yeah, the idea behind all that was more like, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just get on with our lives? And that there wouldn't be giant plutocratic cocks raining down on us from all sides?" Sadly there are, and I'd be damned if I chose to ignore it. I at least want to know what kind of monster I'm feeding when I go to work and buy wine every day.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 07:33:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 07:09:43 PM
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that attempting to look the truth in the eye sucks as it's not comfortable and nice, but it's something I feel I have to do anyway.
Strange, because it seemed that you were actually trying to at least metaphorically burrow under the ground.
Now that I can see that's not the case, welcome to being a Doktor. Truth is ugly, horrible, never noble, and usually covered in gore and bits. But it's the only thing worth having.
Yeah, the idea behind all that was more like, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just get on with our lives? And that there wouldn't be giant plutocratic cocks raining down on us from all sides?" Sadly there are, and I'd be damned if I chose to ignore it. I at least want to know what kind of monster I'm feeding when I go to work and buy wine every day.
Plutocrats? What plutocrats? All I see are alphas. The ones we hired.
Okay, tell me if I got this straight. The Ruby Ridge incident is proof that if you try to duck out and cut loose from the federal government it will hunt you down and kill you. This must be what you mean when you say that one must work within the constraints of society and the "system" if any headway is to be made - many people doing a few things at once.
Amidoinitrite?
Not speaking for the Dok, I consider it more of, "if you get noticed trying to duck out and cut loose from the federal government it will hunt you down and kill you."
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 07:41:48 PM
Okay, tell me if I got this straight. The Ruby Ridge incident is proof that if you try to duck out and cut loose from the federal government it will hunt you down and kill you. This must be what you mean when you say that one must work within the constraints of society and the "system" if any headway is to be made - many people doing a few things at once.
Amidoinitrite?
1. What LMNO said.
2. Blend in. Don't "work within the system", make it
look like you're working within the system. When the police want to know who just did that awful thing, are they going to look at someone who looks respectable, or the guy with the purple hair and cranium piercings? Use their own memes against them. "I am shocked and outraged at what just happened, and I am dressed as an alpha member of this system and thus have a stake in it. Someone should DO something about these hooligans".
CTC, Chapter 27:
A good mindfuck leaves no reasons;
A good sabateur leaves no evidence;
A good artist leaves new questions;
A good barstool removes much idle speculation;
The perfect prison cell looks like the environment;
A nice tie opens many doors.
So a wise spag knows how to blend in,
and takes their freedom once inside.
They understand the people around them,
and know how to get things done.
This is called "Tweaking the Machine™".
Those who proclaim their individuality by following rebels
are still grey, though their fingernails be black.
Such things bring my palms to my face.
The Machine™ cannot be stopped.
But you can gradually redesign it
part by part,
party by party.
[Note: once again, I am speaking for no one but myself]
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 07:56:57 PM
CTC, Chapter 27:
A good mindfuck leaves no reasons;
A good sabateur leaves no evidence;
A good artist leaves new questions;
A good barstool removes much idle speculation;
The perfect prison cell looks like the environment;
A nice tie opens many doors.
So a wise spag knows how to blend in,
and takes their freedom once inside.
They understand the people around them,
and know how to get things done.
This is called "Tweaking the Machine™".
Those who proclaim their individuality by following rebels
are still grey, though their fingernails be black.
Such things bring my palms to my face.
The Machine™ cannot be stopped.
But you can gradually redesign it
part by part,
party by party.
:mittens:
Also, never return to the scene of the crime. And KYFMS.
Looks like a trip to my local Alfa Male Clothing Co. is in order. It's a pity, my face looks better with a beard.
Oh, you can still find style. Just like everything else, you go for it.
There's a reason a nice suit costs a lot. When done right, it makes you look GOOD.
Then the memetic artillery flies while I stand back in my nice suit looking as bewildered as everyone else.
Excellent. This will be perfect, and I have my work cut out for me when I return to college in August. Thread forthcoming.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Oh, you can still find style. Just like everything else, you go for it.
There's a reason a nice suit costs a lot. When done right, it makes you look GOOD.
Truth.
Even a simple tie and a button down does a lot.
Cool. I posted a new thread in Operation Mindfuck, explaining myself, the situation I am currently in. You'll find plenty to pick apart there, but prank/effective mindfuck suggestions from the senior citizens of prankdom would be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Oh, you can still find style. Just like everything else, you go for it.
There's a reason a nice suit costs a lot. When done right, it makes you look GOOD.
This is why you should be paying particular attention to those that look REALLY GOOD.
For if they might be someone wearing sheep's clothing, apparently they are fucking GOOD at it :)
You don't even have to look "formally" good, especially if it's not appropriate. You want to dress so that you look invested in the system. Sometimes that means a clean pair of jeans, a dickey shirt, and steel toe boots.
Good point: Context dictates.
Quote from: LMNO on June 25, 2010, 02:28:50 PM
Good point: Context dictates.
Can't count how many times I've been the outraged fine upstandin' Amurrican, goddammit I PAY my taxes, I shouldn't have to worry about my kids seein' shit like THAT!
Then it seems a Closet of Archetypes is in order. I wonder what I can pull together with what is on hand. Likely a lot more than I might think just standing here. I have clean jeans, button-downs, a belt and steel-toes. That fits down here. The suit, not so much, but I /do/ have a tux. Just have to become less of a slob so that I can fit inside it again. :|
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 26, 2010, 01:17:11 AM
Then it seems a Closet of Archetypes is in order. I wonder what I can pull together with what is on hand. Likely a lot more than I might think just standing here. I have clean jeans, button-downs, a belt and steel-toes. That fits down here. The suit, not so much, but I /do/ have a tux. Just have to become less of a slob so that I can fit inside it again. :|
The jeans and button down combo is probably a good all purpose all occasion blend in look.
In my area, jeans and a t-shirt are my perfect disguise. But I also have slacks and several polo shirts that match the style of several local houses of retail. Please note, no logos, or name tags. Just a similar colouration and no admission of actual ownership. Simply make the appearance of belonging and smile like you are them...or in some cases don't smile.
/rejack
Filing suits on behalf of Awlaki is now a criminal offence (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/03/awlaki/index.html):
QuoteA major legal challenge to one of the Obama administration's most radical assertions of executive power began this morning in a federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Early last month, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights were retained by Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Obama assassination target (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki, to seek a federal court order restraining the Obama administration from killing his son without due process of law. But then, a significant and extraordinary problem arose: regulations promulgated several years ago by the Treasury Department prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with individuals labeled by the Government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist," and those regulations specifically bar lawyers from providing legal services to such individuals without a special "license" from the Treasury Department specifically allowing such representation.
On July 16 -- roughly two weeks after Awlaki's father retained the ACLU and CCR to file suit -- the Treasury Department slapped that label on Awlaki. That action would have made it a criminal offense for those organizations to file suit on behalf of Awlaki or otherwise provide legal representation to him without express permission from the U.S. Government. On July 23, the two groups submitted a request for such a license with the Treasury Department, and when doing so, conveyed the extreme time-urgency involved: namely, that there is an ongoing governmental effort to kill Awlaki and any delay in granting this "license" could cause him to be killed without these claims being heard by a court. Despite that, the Treasury Department failed even to respond to the request.
Left with no choice, the ACLU and CCR this morning filed a lawsuit on their own behalf against Timothy Geithner and the Treasury Department. The suit argues that Treasury has no statutory authority under the law it invokes -- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act -- to bar American lawyers from representing American citizens on an uncompensated basis. It further argues what ought to be a completely uncontroversial point: that even if Congress had vested Treasury with this authority, it is blatantly unconstitutional to deny American citizens the right to have a lawyer, and to deny American lawyers the right to represent clients, without first obtaining a permission slip from Executive Branch officials (the Complaint is here). As the ACLU/CCR Brief puts it: "The notion that the government can compel a citizen to seek its permission before challenging the constitutionality of its actions in court is wholly foreign to our constitutional system" and "[a]s non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights, Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to represent clients in litigation consistent with their organizational missions." The Brief also argues that it is a violation of Separation of Powers to allow the Executive Branch to determine in its sole discretion who can and cannot appear in and have access to a federal court.
Today's lawsuit seeks, on an emergency basis, an Order declaring the Treasury Department's asserted power to be without statutory authority and/or in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and to bar the U.S. Government from imposing any penalties whatsoever (criminal or otherwise) on the ACLU and CCR for providing legal representation to Awlaki. Assuming the court issues such an order, the next step will be for a lawsuit to be quickly filed on Awlaki's behalf to enjoin his targeted assassination.
It's rather amazing that the Federal Government asserts the right to require U.S. citizens and American lawyers to obtain government permission before entering into an attorney-client relationship -- all because these officials decided on their own, with no process, to call the citizen a "Global Terrorist." It's difficult to imagine a more blatantly unconstitutional power than that. What kind of an American would think the Government has the power to decide whether citizens may or may not be represented by lawyers? Then again, this is an administration that asserts the power to choose American citizens for targeted killings far from any battlefield with no due process of any kind -- and plenty of its supporters are perfectly content with this -- so nothing should really be surprising.
Next administration move will be to designate the ACLU a terrorist organization.
UPDATE: Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that the administration has magnanimously deigned to grant permission to the ACLU and CCR to represent Awlaki's father (and Awlaki's interests). The primary effects of this decision are two-fold: it (1) moots the ACLU/CCR's legal challenge to the administration's licensing scheme, thus enabling them to avoid this legal challenge (and thus continue to wield this asserted power until someone else challenges its legality), and (2) ensures that the ACLU and CCR will now promptly file the lawsuit seeking to enjoin the administration from killing Awlaki without criminal charges or any other due process of any kind. Gerstein is a good reporter and his article on the administration's response to this lawsuit is worth reading.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/03/awlaki/index.html
As far as I can tell they stepped back on this either because they knew it would collapse on them or the administration isn't yet prepared to just say, "So?"
Given that SCOTUS already agreed that the administration can do this, I don't see a lot of risk.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 07, 2010, 08:48:35 PM
Given that SCOTUS already agreed that the administration can do this, I don't see a lot of risk.
Gee, that must be why they backed down, huh?
Threats of rape are now allowed in order to extract confessions:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/11/gitmo-rape/
QuoteIn the first full war crimes tribunal of the Obama administration, a military judge held that a detainee who confessed to killing an American solider after he was threatened with being gang-raped to death if he did not cooperate may nonetheless have that confession used against him at trial:
QuoteIn May hearings, a man identified as Interrogator 1 said in testimony that he threatened Mr. Khadr with being gang-raped to death if he did not co-operate. That interrogator was later identified as former U.S. Army Sergeant Joshua Claus. He has also been convicted of abusing a different detainee and has left the military.
Mr. Khadr's military-appointed lawyer, Lieutenant-Colonel Jon Jackson, argued this instance, as well as other alleged instances of torture and coercion, are enough to render any future confessions – even those in so-called "clean" interrogations – inadmissible in court.
"The well was poisoned: The government can't cleanse the well by saying, 'Well, someone else came in and was nice to him,' " Col. Jackson said.
Not so, the prosecution countered: All the confessions and testimony it plans to bring forward were freely offered by Mr. Khadr to people who treated him well. [...]
Military judge Colonel Patrick Parrish sided with the prosecution
Khadr was only 15 years old at the time of his capture and confession, earning his tribunal a strong condemnation from the United Nations. In the words of the UN, "Juvenile justice standards are clear. Children should not be tried before military tribunals."
The military judge's decision to admit a coerced confession raises even more troubling questions about whether this particular tribunal will reach accurate results. As the Supreme Court recognized almost 75 years ago, confessions extracted by "brutality and violence" are akin to "deliberate deception" of the court because they reveal little about a suspect's guilt or innocence and everything about their very human desire to avoid or end torture. This principle obviously applies to Khadr. A prisoner who is convinced that they will be raped and murdered if they do not confess has nothing to lose — and what remains of their personal dignity to gain — by doing so.
A member of Khadr's legal team called the judge's decision a "disgrace," and that lawyer is right. Coerced confessions are not simply inhumane — and not simply un-American — they produce wholly unreliable evidence. Mr. Khadr may actually be guilty, but a confession extracted by a rape threat does nothing to prove this point.
:x
That is fucked up.
What is WRONG with these fucking tribunal judges? Fucking desperate assholes, making serious egregious errors. Credibility severely compromised there. Fuck.
That's the tribunal judge's job Jen. Why do you think they waited for the tribunals to give any trials? They allow hearsay in these things. Hearsay!
...don't make it good nor right. And fuck Obama if this shit's gonna continue unchecked.