[Needtoknow] Rule by fear or rule by law?

[Jason King]

Rule by fear or rule by law?
By Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc.
Dan Hamburg, a former Congressman, is executive director.
 
This article appeared in the hard copy San Francisco Chronicle
on Mon., Feb. 4, 2008, as well as in its online version. 
 

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating
any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of
his peers, 
is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian
government 
whether Nazi or Communist."

                                                                            
 Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
 
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal
government 
has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of
dissidents 
(citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or
constitutional recourse
in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to
support the rapid 
development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid
contracts 
with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention
camps 
at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also
contracted 
with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly
equipped 
with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part
of a 
Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of
"all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to
taxpayer-
gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs"
require 
the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every
state of 
the union with the capacity to house millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of
the 
Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to
invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president
is now 
authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease
outbreak, 
a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines
that 
domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot
maintain 
public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before
the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone
-- 
citizen or noncitizen -- who donates money to a charity that turns up on a
list of 
"terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against government policies. 
The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.   
 
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential
Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of
what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the
president 
determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered
to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government."

This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the
Constitution 
to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on
NSPD-51.

   U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a
new way 
to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the
lopsided 
vote of 404-6 and which is being considered in the Senate, would set up a
commission to 
"examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent
radicalism and 
extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues
from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of
terrorism 
and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal
Enterprise 
Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil
disobedience, trespass,
or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups
in the crosshairs 
could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration
activists, environmentalists,
peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on
and on. 
According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds
the names 
of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000
per month.

   What could the Government be contemplating that leads it to make
contingency plans 
to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

   The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power
under any circumstances.
The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule
by fear instead of by law.