ZGram - 12/4/2001 - "Keep your eye on the target" - Part III

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

December 4, 2001

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Once again I had very serious server problems yesterday and, possibly, the
day before.  I don't know if this was technical or sabotage.

At any rate, I lost a lot of e-mail that was, apparently, returned to the
senders, and Part I of my 3-part Ron Paul series, "Keep your eye on the
target" did not get out.

I am resending it, along with today's conclusion below.

[START]

 The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are
concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our
liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret.  Nazi war
criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the
trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the
eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and
the American public.  Since such a process threatens national security and
the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their
protection.

 Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages
for five years.  If so, what would have been its justification?

 The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak
justification.  Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book - the
Constitution.  But the situation then was quite different from today.
There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans,
who sent eight saboteurs into our country.  Convictions were unanimous, not
2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted.  That's not what's being
offered today.  Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when
the war ended.  Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the
courts.

 The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished
with the stroke of a pen.  It may be that we have come to that stage in our
history when an executive order is "the law of the land," but it's not
"kinda cool," as one member of the previous administration bragged.  It's a
process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis.

 There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals.  Up
until now, the United States has consistently condemned them.  The fact
that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the
United States is scary.  With no appeals available, and no defense
attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel us to reject
such a system outright.

 Those who favor these trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in
its tracks.  We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these
tribunals.  This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and
convicted before they are assigned to this type of "trial" without due
process.  They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the
traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven
guilty.  This turns the justice system on its head.

 One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to
foreigners who are terrorists.  Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a
slippery slope.  We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were
"convicted" and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and
they were, for the most part, American citizens.  Randy Weaver's family
fared no better.

 It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of
freedom, justice and prosperity throughout the world is through example and
persuasion, not through force of arms.  We have drifted a long way from
that concept.  Military courts will be another bad example for the world.
We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was
tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court.
Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian
dictator.

 The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the
criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual.  This can hardly
represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice.  Once government
becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused.
Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this
barbaric proposal.  For every proposal made to circumvent the justice
system, it's intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law
and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve
innocent U.S.  citizens.  This is impossible, because someone has to
determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all
of us.  That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a
representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian
government.

 Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be
convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts
is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court.
Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and
carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice?  If we do, the war
will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.

 Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should never
concede this power to a President or an Attorney General.  Congressional
oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this
unconstitutional assumption of power.

 The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports
is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested.
For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all
policing activity.  This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost.
Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move.  The Constitution
never intended that the federal government assume this power.  This concept
was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the
military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or
arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military
is only used for this type of purpose in a police state.  Interestingly, it
was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution
against Mexico.  The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time
was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this
prohibition, the revolution broke out.  We should not so readily concede
the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this
country.

 The threats to liberty seem endless.  It seems we have forgotten to target
the enemy.  Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American
citizens.  The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have
argued all along for bigger government.

 For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love
personal liberty.  The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued
against the reinstatement of the draft.  Yet the clamor for its
reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft
all along.  I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty.  Morally it
cannot be distinguished from slavery.  All the arguments for drafting
18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched
in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees.  The
need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the
call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy.  There
can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers
than the federal government's domineering control, forcing them to fight an
enemy they don't even know in a country they can't even identity.

 Now it's argued that since the federal government has taken over the
entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the
draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious
objectors.

 The proponents of the draft call it "mandatory service." Slavery, too, was
mandatory, but few believed it was a service.  They claim that every
18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country.  Let's hope
the American people don't fall for this "need to serve" argument.  The
Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal.  Better yet, what
we need to do is abolish the Selective Service altogether.

 However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a
proposal.  Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper
editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has
never served in the military and who demands that the draft be reinstated,
should be drafted first - the 18-year olds last.  Since the Pentagon says
they don't need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to
the orders of the general in charge of homeland security.  For those less
robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the
rest of the newly formed domestic army.  After all, someone middle aged
owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old.

 I'm certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return
of the military draft.

 I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned- not only about
another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the
Congress deals with the crisis.  Personal freedom is the element of the
human condition that has made America great and unique and something we all
cherish.  Even those who are more willing to sacrifice a little freedom for
security do it with the firm conviction that they are acting in the best
interest of freedom and justice.  However, good intentions can never
suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty.

 I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with
the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all
our ills.  I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving
us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited
government, and minding our own business overseas.

 Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, "The Mainspring
of Human Progress", years ago warned us that good intentions in politics
are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause.  Weaver
stated:

 "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning
people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied
to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot
of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own.  The harm
done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible
in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the
professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth
and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others- with the abiding
assurance that the end justifies the means."

 This message is one we should all ponder.

=====
Source:

 http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm

=====

Thought for the Day:

(Sent to the Zundelsite) with to"Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs;
the Titanic
by professionals."

(Sent to the Zundelsite)