Monday, February 19, 2007
The War against Freedom
The following article was published by the Free Arab Voice shortly after the attacks of 11 September 2001.
The U.S. War Against Freedom
by Nabila Harb \ FAV Co-Editor
In November of 1997, I wrote an article for the Free Arab Voice on the
topic of the use of secret evidence and new legislation designed to
provide ammunition to support U.S. political definitions of 'terrorist
organisations'. This legislation, passed purportedly in response to the
Oklahoma City bombing, gave the government a means by which to
circumvent human rights supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
as well as ordinary rules of evidence. Pursuant to this Act, a list of
supposed 'terrorist organisations' was created, and any one who was
perceived as 'supporting' the prescribed organisations in any fashion
(including humanitarian aid) could be punished for doing so.
The 1996 Act resurrected the policy of the McCarran-Walter Act
overturned in 1990. Any individual not a U.S. citizen could be denied
entry into the U.S., or if in the U.S. could be imprisoned indefinitely
or deported solely because of humanitarian support of a group on the
so-called 'list of terrorist organisations'. As for U.S. citizens, they
could be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined for providing
humanitarian relief to institutions affiliated with the groups on the
list.
Basically, this legislation and list were designed to silence any
opposition to U.S. foreign or domestic policies. 'National security' as
defined in the Act, is not only 'national defence' but also 'foreign
relations or economic interests of the U.S.'. This is a sweeping
definition giving the U.S. government power to punish any individual or
group daring to disagree with U.S. policies.
In other words, security is whatever the government wishes it to be, and
any organisation can be designated as a 'foreign terrorist organisation'
on this basis. It is clear that this is as arbitrary as the old laws of
treason, and the State here is declaring: 'you will be punished if I do
not agree with your aims, if your goals threaten my friends, or the
interests of my investors.'
The intent of this law is intimidation, pure and simple. "Here is a list
of our enemies, whom we intend to crush in any manner at our disposal,
whether overt or covert, legal or illegal.' The statute does in fact
encourage the President to 'use all necessary means, including covert
action and military force' in pursuit of this goal.
Many human rights activists as well as members of the legal community
alerted the public to the dangers inherent in this legislation. The
practical implications of this legislation were such that simple
donations to a charitable institution such as a hospital or orphanage,
if that institution had been founded or was otherwise said to be
connected to a group on the list, could be punishable by 10 years
imprisonment. The offence, as defined in the Act, consisted of giving
'material support or resources' to any group on the list, and 'material
support or resources' is defined as any 'physical assets' including, inter alia, 'lodging, communications equipment,personnel and transportation'.
Thus, support or resources could be as simple a matter as the loan of a
car, a telephone, a bed for the night, or the offer to perform any task,
however innocent, for someone connected to one of these groups.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this legislation, however, was that
it allowed the government to use secret evidence in taking measures
against individuals opposed to U.S. policies. Since the passage of this
legislation, a large number of individuals, the majority of whom are
Muslim and/or Arab, have been imprisoned on the basis of secret evidence
and held indefinitely. Neither they nor their legal counsel have any
right to see the evidence against them, and ordinary rights to a writ of
habeus corpus do not apply. The law was challenged in the courts but
still was in force on 11 September 2001.
Immediately after 11 September 2001, the U.S. government declared that
the legislation of 1996 did not go far enough, and that further
legislation would be required for an unconditional 'war against terror'.
The American people were told that the attacks against the U.S. made
such measures necessary. George Bush Jr., however, originally assumed
the Presidency with full determination to be a 'wartime President' like
his father before him, and to increase the powers of the Executive by
any means possible. This President, who barely won his position, and
who indeed, arguably did not really win the election, began his term as
an unsuccessful supplicant begging the American people for support of
unpopular programmes that would require extensive funding, among them a plan for 'shields' in space and a proposal to use Social Security funds. After 11 September, Bush Jr. was able to assume a new if spurious role as 'saviour of the Nation' and in this guise, to fulfil all of his aims within the short space of two
months.
How was this achieved? First, spokespeople for the government as well as
the media judiciously fostered a sense of terror and hysteria in the
minds of the public. Although it was clear to any objective observer
that the attacks of 11 September were timed to take place simultaneously, the President of the U.S. informed the American people that more attacks were expected. (No further attacks ever took place.) He then unilaterally proceeded to declare a 'State of War'.
Usually, when a War is declared, there is another party involved. Wars are declared only against 'Enemy States' and there is a proper procedure for declaring war. George Bush Jr., however, managed to circumvent ordinary rules for declaration of War, unilaterally proclaiming a State of War against a nebulous, indefinite adversary. His war was to be a 'War against Terror'. (The U.S. 'war' in Vietnam is a different kind of an example of a war that did not exist, as war was never declared. Instead, the war in Vietnam was called a 'police action'.)
A 'State of War' allows the Executive to assume powers not given during
times of peace. It allows human rights to be suspended in some cases.
The Zionists in Palestine have been using war measures enacted by the
British over half a century ago to carry out an ongoing ruthless
campaign of ethnic genocide against the Palestinian people. Junior
President Bush obviously was inspired by the Zionist example.
Furthermore, by declaring a War against 'Terror', Bush then would be
able to define 'Terror' as and whenever he pleased. At first, he
declared that the Enemy was Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Then he
declared that although the U.S. would not wage war against the nation of
Afghanistan, it would wage war against the government of Afghanistan in
the form of the Taliban. How could this distinction be made and how did
the Taliban become the target? The U.S. government argued that because
the Taliban would not surrender Usama bin Laden to the kangaroo court of
American Justice, it then became partly 'responsible' for the 11
September attacks against the U.S. With this faulty logic, the U.S.
then proceeded to devastate the nation of Afghanistan with carpet
bombing, saturation bombing and so forth, destroying villages, killing
civilians and incidentally bombing the Red Cross FOUR times while
continuing to protest that it was NOT waging war against Afghanistan.
To further foster the illusion of friendship towards Afghanistan, the
U.S. bombarded the countryside with food packets while continuing to
send down lethal bombs as well.
In support of its foreign policy in its 'war against TERROR', the U.S.
declared to the international community that 'you are either for us or
against us. If you are not for us, then you will be considered fair
game in THE WAR AGAINST TERROR.' It was not surprising, then, to find
international opposition to this NOT-war against Afghanistan feeble and
hedged with obsequious declarations of condemnation of the attacks of 11
September.
In the same oppressive manner, the U.S. government began to silence
internal opposition to its NOT-war against Afghanistan by bolstering
existing legislation and enacting new legislation. First on the agenda
was the removal of any protection of the U.S. Constitution from
non-citizens. Non-citizens now are considered to have no constitutional
rights whatsoever. They are in the U.S. simply upon sufferance and if
they show themselves to be less than fully supportive of U.S. policies,
they can be imprisoned and/or deported. Moreover, their property can be
seized and their assets frozen. Not only is the use of secret evidence
encouraged, but there now need be NO evidence of any sort of support of
'terrorism'. It is enough if the non-citizen has committed ANY bureaucratic offence, such as outstaying a visa.
Pursuant to this, over 1200 individuals were taken into custody after 11
September, half of which were still being held by early December. More
than 5000 other individuals were in the process of being questioned. The
government has admitted that it has found NO connections to 'terrorism'
and yet the detention and the questioning continue. Some individuals
who are guilty of nothing more than holding visas that have expired have
begged to be deported, but in vain. Moreover, it has been decided that
military courts, rather than ordinary civil courts, will have
jurisdiction in such cases, whenever this is deemed desirable. This
decision effectively denies the defendant any protection that remains
under common law, constitutional law or civil rules of evidence. The
situation, in effect, is as follows: Over 5,000 foreign nationals have
been subjected to intense questioning by the FBI . Included are
questions about the subject's feelings about the attacks of 11
September, which is an absurdity. How can emotions be actionable? Of
the foreign nationals rounded up in the federal government's
'anti-terrorism sweep', Boyd F. Campbell, a leading immigration lawyer
states: 'These foreign nationals have not been identified by the
Attorney General. Neither I, nor the general public, knows whether any
of these persons has violated any U.S. laws. We don't know whether they
are being well treated. We don't know whether they are being housed with
common criminals in federal prisons. We don't know whether these persons
are being allowed to contact family members or legal counsel.
'My Arab-American clients are afraid -- afraid to go out to a movie,
afraid to go to work, afraid to go shopping, afraid to go to a
restaurant. And my clients who appear to be of Arab descent are afraid
-- afraid of being arrested, detained, questioned, harassed, or worse,
attacked.'
Other lawyers and human rights groups have challenged the new
legislation. On 5 December, the first lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and
other groups in the U.S. District Court or the District of Columbia,
claiming that the U.S. government is violating the Constitution and
federal law by withholding basic information about some 1,000 people
picked up by police since the terror attacks. Although Attorney General
John Ashcroft and other U.S. Justice Department officials have released fragments of information they refused to reveal names or locations of detainees.
The complaint further declares that 'This secrecy is unprecedented and
deprives the public of information it is lawfully entitled to
receive.' Immediate release of government documents that civil rights
groups requested in October is demanded.
'We will obviously review the suit,' Justice Department spokeswoman
Mindy Tucker said. 'The attorney general has been very clear about why
certain information will not be released.' With his usual penchant for
distorting the truth, Ashcroft claimed that he knew of no lawsuits
filed to challenge the government's arrest and detention of people,
mainly from Muslim countries, who 'might' have some connection with
'terrorism.'
A fundamental problem with mounting a court challenge is that so little
is known about those detained. Lawyers would have to know basics about a
case to claim that someone's civil rights were violated. Although the
lawsuit of 5 December seeks the kind of information that lawyers would
need to take individual cases to court, it unfortunately does not
challenge the government's right to arrest or detain anyone. When the
Executive Branch of the Government unilaterally suspends the application
of the rule of law in favour of exercising authority at its sole
discretion, this is the first step on the path to a dictatorship.
Secret evidence and the use of military tribunals to judge civilians are
frightening. More frightening still is the recent suggestion, rather
widely approved, to use torture in interrogations of 'terror suspects'.
Again, although the American public as well as the international community
have been told that these 'extraordinary measures' are a necessary 'response'
to the attacks of 11 September, quite clearly, this is not the case.
The government began to attack the structure of basic human rights and liberties long before 11 September.
In February 2001, the Terrorist Act 2001 took effect in England. This
act allows prosecution of people alleged to 'endanger lives through the
manipulation of public computer systems' under the anti-terrorism law as
would any other terrorist. "There isn't a specific section that deals
with cybercrime as such, it is covered within the various sections, but
anyone who seriously interferes with, or seriously disrupts an
electronic system will be dealt with under the anti-terrorism law,' said
a spokesman for the Home Office, the government department that oversees
immigration and crime.
The Terrorism Act was intended to extend the definition of what is
legally defined as a terrorist. The definition now includes, along
with resistance groups such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or
Hizbullah, any U.K.-based group planning an attack outside of the U.K.
or any group threatening or planning 'serious violence' within the U.K.
That can include hackers or political protestors if their actions or
intentions 'turn violent,' declared a spokesman for the Government.
Under the new powers, the police now have the authority to determine
what they deem to be 'violent' and who they feel comes under the legal
definition of a 'terrorist.' The vague nature of the Terrorism Act
immediately came under criticism from the Government Opposition as well
as human rights activists. Since 11 September, unfortunately, the
scope of so-called 'anti-terrorist' legislation in the U.K. has widened.
Here in the U.S., passage of an outrageous statute known as the Patriot
Act has widened the U.S. government's powers of surveillance
considerably. Not only can the government punish individuals for simply
being sympathetic to resistance groups considered to be 'terrorist' by
the U.S., but also it no longer needs to conform to ordinary rules of
conduct and evidence in gathering its secret evidence. Use of internet
surveillance and 'roving taps' will allow the government to invade the privacy of any individual it deems suspect. Section 216 [of the Patriot Act] amends the pen register statute to make it clear that Internet communications are subject to pen
register authority. The enforcement agency may acquire 'routing and
addressing' information in addition to 'dialling and signalling'
information. The addressing information may include who is copied on the
message as well as its intended recipient. The pen register amendment
also allows federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a single pen
register order that may be implemented anywhere in the country. No longer will the service provider need to be named expressly in the order, nor will the carrier need to ensure that the information acquired had been intended for delivery within a particular federal court's jurisdiction.
Executive Order 13224, blocking property and prohibiting transactions
with persons who 'commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism' is
the final nail in the coffin of freedom. Junior George Bush, purporting
to act 'by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, including the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies
Act,' etc. by this Order declared a State of Emergency and gave the U.S.
government the power to block property belonging to any individual or
entity that the U.S. government might consider to be giving support of
any kind to a 'terrorist organisation' as defined solely by the U.S.
government. The pertinent clauses of the Order are copied at the end of this article because it is important that every one be aware of its scope. Basically, the Order provides the government with almost unlimited power to confiscate property belonging to any one for purely political reasons, on the grounds that the individual or entity has demonstrated support (whether material or moral) to any
group, organisation, or individual labelled as 'terrorist' by the U.S.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government now can do almost
anything it pleases where non-citizens are concerned and far more than
is constitutional in legal terms in its dealings with its citizens. A
'State of War', prolonged indefinitely, will give Junior Bush, as
Executive, almost unlimited powers. The old 'balance of power'
envisioned by John Locke, upon which the U.S. government was founded, is
no longer a reality. The Executive Branch in time of war, is allowed to
operate independently and indeed is doing so.
Nor will this 'State of War' be allowed to end with the defeat of the
Taliban. With far-sighted determination, Junior Bush declared from the
very start that ANY nation or group that supported 'terrorism' or
'terrorists' would be fair game. Even before his campaign of terror
against the Taliban, Bush hinted that Iraq might be next. Terror, like
treason, is defined by politics. Junior Bush is not about to relinquish
the power he has taken as Commander in Chief, and thus, his spurious
'State of War' is likely to be indefinite, allowing him to usurp more
and more power and to further weaken the balance of power which is the foundation of American democracy. By periodically issuing warnings of possible 'terrorist attacks', the American public can be kept in a state of fear and insecurity, increasingly dependent upon the strong arm of its President. Frequent reminders in the form of graphic photographs and videos of the wreckage of the World Trade
Centre serve to revitalise the rage and indignation of the American
people against 'those folks', as George Bush refers to perceived enemies
of the American capitalist society.
Possibly the most sinister implication of all of this is the realisation
that Bush's actions are NOT a response to the attacks of 11 September
but were a pre-conceived aim. Economic contracts with the Zionists
dealing with the construction of a pipeline for natural gas in
Afghanistan signed 10 years ago necessitated the eventual defeat of the
Taliban who had no interest in facilitating American/Zionist economic
success. With respect to the 'special relationship' between the U.S.
and the Zionist entity, the attacks of 11 September have been used to
strengthen the bonds between the two. In September, immediately after
the hijackings in the States, Butcher Sharon announced to the world that
the Zionists and the Americans now were both victims of 'terrorism', and
that the U.S. now would understand that ALL actions could be justified when dealing with 'terrorists'. Much of the world was outraged by Sharon's statement at the time, and yet, three months later, Bush has incorporated all of the Zionist policies of State-sponsored terrorism in his own programme and has thrown the full
weight of U.S. support to the Zionist Terrorist entity. No longer is
there even an appearance of fairness in U.S. policy where Palestine is
concerned. Hamas, the P.F.L.P. and Hizbullah, all legitimate resistance
groups, are all on the list of 'terrorist organisations' published by
the U.S. By using the same techniques against resistance organisations
as the U.S. has been utilising in its 'war against drugs' for years, the
scope of government power to silence or destroy all opposition to its
policies and interests has become greater. By treating legitimate
charitable organisations like drug dealers, the U.S. has frozen assets
of groups that did nothing more than help oppressed people. Any
individual or charitable group NOT on the list, if accused of
'supporting' any of the listed organisations, is in danger of having all
assets seized or frozen as well. Unfortunately, the American public,
incited to hysteria by its own government after the hijackings of 11
September, blindly supports Bush's programme of 'security', not
realising that the real attacks upon freedom are being mounted by its
own leaders. Muslims and Arabs in this country, instead of loudly
protesting these outrages, are intimidated by threats to their own security, and foolishly and cravenly continue to publish declarations of support for Bush's 'war against TERROR'.
Junior Bush explains that he is not waging war either against Islam or
against the Arab Nation, but only against 'TERRORISM' when in fact he
clearly is waging a war against both. Unfortunately, if the Arab Nation
and Ummah internationally do not show any real unity in opposition to
the nefarious policies of the U.S., then there is no reason to expect
that Arabs and Muslims living within the U.S. will demonstrate any
courage either. By threatening the financial interests of Arabs and
Muslims, the U.S. government evidently has found an effective weapon to
use against anyone who dares to challenge U.S. policies either in the
U.S. or abroad. A threat to financial security is probably the most
potent means by which to divide and conquer opposition. In the
past, the U.S. managed to weaken Arab opposition to the Zionist entity
by buying the leaders of the Arab Nation. Now, it has found a way to
cut costs dramatically simply by threatening assets held by States,
organisations and individuals. Any money saved can be put towards
Bush's cherished aim to increase 'defence' capabilities, an ambition
decried before 11 September by the public but now considered vital to
the health and well-being of the United States.
Moreover, the American government has created another tool by which to
divide and conquer the Arab and Muslim Nations in the form of a bribe or
'inducement' for foreign nationals. Attorney General John Ashcroft has
recommended use of the 'S' non-immigrant visa for persons who may
provide information or assistance as witnesses in connection with the
'fight against terrorism.' He announced that the INS may ignore the visa
problems of foreign nationals who offer information about 'terrorists'
to the FBI. He declared that: 'The people who have the courage to make the right choice deserve to be welcomed as guests into our country and perhaps to one day become fellow citizens'.
The 'right choice' obviously is defined as unconditional acceptance of
U.S./Zionist interests and propaganda. Sadly, such offers will be
tempting to those who place personal security above any consideration of
morals and ethics. Again, if the Arab Nation and Muslim Ummah do not
demonstrate unity to challenge the U.S./Zionist alliance, its power
will increase until challenge no longer will be a viable option and the
only reality will be the dark reality of the American/Zionist 'dream'.
There remains a glimmer of hope, however, as Bush's 'war on terror' is
being challenged by a few Americans with courage and integrity.
Although the American public misguidedly has confidence in Bush and his
government, Boyd F. Campbell does not. With respect to the attacks of
11 September, he declared: 'The events of September 11 were evidence
that there was a tragic intelligence failure at the top levels of the
federal government. There can be no argument on this point. It was the
worst U.S. intelligence failure in more than 60 years. It will be a
long, long time before I have any confidence in the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service enforcement division and the Border Patrol, the
National Security Agency, the National Reconnaisance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or any other federal government intelligence-gathering or law enforcement organisation.'
Unfortunately, an ongoing 'war' will allow George Bush to surf the wave
of popularity, continuing to divert the attention of the American public
away from the reality of a recession with job cuts that affect a large
percentage of families in the U.S. War makes good business, especially
for those who profit from the manufacture and sale of 'weapons of mass
destruction' in the United States. Paradoxically, while ranting against
'those folks' who are driven by desperate circumstances to armed
resistance, George Bush is doing everything possible to promote the
increase in U.S. weapons of mass destruction and to facilitate their use
abroad.
One need only look at the recent anthrax 'attack' in order to understand that the real threat to the American people comes from its own government, rather than from any 'foreign agents'. The real villain in this drama is not Usama bin Laden
but the home-grown terrorist named George Bush Jr. The American public
as well as the international community have to reject his vision of
reality or face consequences that ultimately will be far worse than the
hijackings of 11 September.
The worst kind of terrorism is State-sponsored terrorism, and the U.S. as well as the Zionist entity funded by the U.S. are at the top of the list. It is they who are the true enemies of freedom and justice. The American public and
international community must be willing to expose the illusions promoted
by these entities and reject their terrorist programmes or else be held
responsible for the atrocities they commit. The fact is that the
hijackings of 11 September were motivated by desperation and a sense
of anger at the U.S. for its arrogant, irresponsible, even criminal
foreign policies and frustration with the American people for their
ignorance and lack of intelligent interest in world affairs. Instead
of taking the attacks of 11 September as a warning, Americans have
chosen to support a President who is determined to outdo his
predecessors in acts of aggression and interference abroad. Murdering
resistance leaders and their followers will not end resistance to
oppression. The only way to end resistance is by dealing with the
causes of that resistance. Real security for the people of the United
States will be possible only when the U.S. begins to support the cause
of justice instead of giving its support to criminal regimes such
as the Zionist regime in Palestine.
Moreover, even if Bush, in his capacity as U.S. Executive, has provided
that foreign nationals shall not have the protection and rights given in
the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. remains bound by the United Nations
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was passed, signed and
ratified by Congress. The Covenant is constitutional as it has been
signed and ratified and can be amended; moreover, unlike a treaty, it
cannot be denounced.
Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that a
person has a right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal. This is pertinent not only to the
prisoners taken by the U.S. in its 'not-war' in Afghanistan, but is
applicable to any foreign nationals taken into custody under the
so-called 'anti-terrorist' legislation and Bush's intention to give
military tribunals jurisdiction over them.
The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is international law, and was
enacted precisely in order to give foreign nationals the same
inalienable constitutional rights that are delineated by the U.S.
Constitution. Even if the rights and protections provided by the U.S.
Constitution are abrogated by the U.S. Executive in the case of foreign
nationals, Bush remains bound by the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The sort of military tribunals which he is determined to create
clearly contravene the provisions of the Covenant, as a military
tribunal is neither independent nor impartial and thus, contravenes
international constitutional law.
In the same way in which Bush had predetermined his campaign against the
Taliban in Afghanistan from the very start, even when he insisted that
his target was Al Qaeda, he envisions the use of military tribunals in
all cases where his 'anti-terrorist' legislation is invoked. Although
the military tribunals will be created ostensibly to deal with the
prisoners of his 'not-war' in Afghanistan, he proposes that individuals
taken into custody pursuant to 'anti-terrorist' legislation be tried by
the same tribunals. Such tribunals clearly contravene international
constitutional law, however, and cannot be used legitimately either
against individuals taken prisoner in Afghanistan or those who are taken into custody in the United States.
To see the attachments to this piece:
a) Executive Order 13224, blocking property and prohibiting transactions
with persons who 'commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism',
b) Questions for FBI interviews, and
c) Article 14, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
The U.S. War Against Freedom
by Nabila Harb \ FAV Co-Editor
In November of 1997, I wrote an article for the Free Arab Voice on the
topic of the use of secret evidence and new legislation designed to
provide ammunition to support U.S. political definitions of 'terrorist
organisations'. This legislation, passed purportedly in response to the
Oklahoma City bombing, gave the government a means by which to
circumvent human rights supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
as well as ordinary rules of evidence. Pursuant to this Act, a list of
supposed 'terrorist organisations' was created, and any one who was
perceived as 'supporting' the prescribed organisations in any fashion
(including humanitarian aid) could be punished for doing so.
The 1996 Act resurrected the policy of the McCarran-Walter Act
overturned in 1990. Any individual not a U.S. citizen could be denied
entry into the U.S., or if in the U.S. could be imprisoned indefinitely
or deported solely because of humanitarian support of a group on the
so-called 'list of terrorist organisations'. As for U.S. citizens, they
could be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined for providing
humanitarian relief to institutions affiliated with the groups on the
list.
Basically, this legislation and list were designed to silence any
opposition to U.S. foreign or domestic policies. 'National security' as
defined in the Act, is not only 'national defence' but also 'foreign
relations or economic interests of the U.S.'. This is a sweeping
definition giving the U.S. government power to punish any individual or
group daring to disagree with U.S. policies.
In other words, security is whatever the government wishes it to be, and
any organisation can be designated as a 'foreign terrorist organisation'
on this basis. It is clear that this is as arbitrary as the old laws of
treason, and the State here is declaring: 'you will be punished if I do
not agree with your aims, if your goals threaten my friends, or the
interests of my investors.'
The intent of this law is intimidation, pure and simple. "Here is a list
of our enemies, whom we intend to crush in any manner at our disposal,
whether overt or covert, legal or illegal.' The statute does in fact
encourage the President to 'use all necessary means, including covert
action and military force' in pursuit of this goal.
Many human rights activists as well as members of the legal community
alerted the public to the dangers inherent in this legislation. The
practical implications of this legislation were such that simple
donations to a charitable institution such as a hospital or orphanage,
if that institution had been founded or was otherwise said to be
connected to a group on the list, could be punishable by 10 years
imprisonment. The offence, as defined in the Act, consisted of giving
'material support or resources' to any group on the list, and 'material
support or resources' is defined as any 'physical assets' including, inter alia, 'lodging, communications equipment,personnel and transportation'.
Thus, support or resources could be as simple a matter as the loan of a
car, a telephone, a bed for the night, or the offer to perform any task,
however innocent, for someone connected to one of these groups.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this legislation, however, was that
it allowed the government to use secret evidence in taking measures
against individuals opposed to U.S. policies. Since the passage of this
legislation, a large number of individuals, the majority of whom are
Muslim and/or Arab, have been imprisoned on the basis of secret evidence
and held indefinitely. Neither they nor their legal counsel have any
right to see the evidence against them, and ordinary rights to a writ of
habeus corpus do not apply. The law was challenged in the courts but
still was in force on 11 September 2001.
Immediately after 11 September 2001, the U.S. government declared that
the legislation of 1996 did not go far enough, and that further
legislation would be required for an unconditional 'war against terror'.
The American people were told that the attacks against the U.S. made
such measures necessary. George Bush Jr., however, originally assumed
the Presidency with full determination to be a 'wartime President' like
his father before him, and to increase the powers of the Executive by
any means possible. This President, who barely won his position, and
who indeed, arguably did not really win the election, began his term as
an unsuccessful supplicant begging the American people for support of
unpopular programmes that would require extensive funding, among them a plan for 'shields' in space and a proposal to use Social Security funds. After 11 September, Bush Jr. was able to assume a new if spurious role as 'saviour of the Nation' and in this guise, to fulfil all of his aims within the short space of two
months.
How was this achieved? First, spokespeople for the government as well as
the media judiciously fostered a sense of terror and hysteria in the
minds of the public. Although it was clear to any objective observer
that the attacks of 11 September were timed to take place simultaneously, the President of the U.S. informed the American people that more attacks were expected. (No further attacks ever took place.) He then unilaterally proceeded to declare a 'State of War'.
Usually, when a War is declared, there is another party involved. Wars are declared only against 'Enemy States' and there is a proper procedure for declaring war. George Bush Jr., however, managed to circumvent ordinary rules for declaration of War, unilaterally proclaiming a State of War against a nebulous, indefinite adversary. His war was to be a 'War against Terror'. (The U.S. 'war' in Vietnam is a different kind of an example of a war that did not exist, as war was never declared. Instead, the war in Vietnam was called a 'police action'.)
A 'State of War' allows the Executive to assume powers not given during
times of peace. It allows human rights to be suspended in some cases.
The Zionists in Palestine have been using war measures enacted by the
British over half a century ago to carry out an ongoing ruthless
campaign of ethnic genocide against the Palestinian people. Junior
President Bush obviously was inspired by the Zionist example.
Furthermore, by declaring a War against 'Terror', Bush then would be
able to define 'Terror' as and whenever he pleased. At first, he
declared that the Enemy was Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Then he
declared that although the U.S. would not wage war against the nation of
Afghanistan, it would wage war against the government of Afghanistan in
the form of the Taliban. How could this distinction be made and how did
the Taliban become the target? The U.S. government argued that because
the Taliban would not surrender Usama bin Laden to the kangaroo court of
American Justice, it then became partly 'responsible' for the 11
September attacks against the U.S. With this faulty logic, the U.S.
then proceeded to devastate the nation of Afghanistan with carpet
bombing, saturation bombing and so forth, destroying villages, killing
civilians and incidentally bombing the Red Cross FOUR times while
continuing to protest that it was NOT waging war against Afghanistan.
To further foster the illusion of friendship towards Afghanistan, the
U.S. bombarded the countryside with food packets while continuing to
send down lethal bombs as well.
In support of its foreign policy in its 'war against TERROR', the U.S.
declared to the international community that 'you are either for us or
against us. If you are not for us, then you will be considered fair
game in THE WAR AGAINST TERROR.' It was not surprising, then, to find
international opposition to this NOT-war against Afghanistan feeble and
hedged with obsequious declarations of condemnation of the attacks of 11
September.
In the same oppressive manner, the U.S. government began to silence
internal opposition to its NOT-war against Afghanistan by bolstering
existing legislation and enacting new legislation. First on the agenda
was the removal of any protection of the U.S. Constitution from
non-citizens. Non-citizens now are considered to have no constitutional
rights whatsoever. They are in the U.S. simply upon sufferance and if
they show themselves to be less than fully supportive of U.S. policies,
they can be imprisoned and/or deported. Moreover, their property can be
seized and their assets frozen. Not only is the use of secret evidence
encouraged, but there now need be NO evidence of any sort of support of
'terrorism'. It is enough if the non-citizen has committed ANY bureaucratic offence, such as outstaying a visa.
Pursuant to this, over 1200 individuals were taken into custody after 11
September, half of which were still being held by early December. More
than 5000 other individuals were in the process of being questioned. The
government has admitted that it has found NO connections to 'terrorism'
and yet the detention and the questioning continue. Some individuals
who are guilty of nothing more than holding visas that have expired have
begged to be deported, but in vain. Moreover, it has been decided that
military courts, rather than ordinary civil courts, will have
jurisdiction in such cases, whenever this is deemed desirable. This
decision effectively denies the defendant any protection that remains
under common law, constitutional law or civil rules of evidence. The
situation, in effect, is as follows: Over 5,000 foreign nationals have
been subjected to intense questioning by the FBI . Included are
questions about the subject's feelings about the attacks of 11
September, which is an absurdity. How can emotions be actionable? Of
the foreign nationals rounded up in the federal government's
'anti-terrorism sweep', Boyd F. Campbell, a leading immigration lawyer
states: 'These foreign nationals have not been identified by the
Attorney General. Neither I, nor the general public, knows whether any
of these persons has violated any U.S. laws. We don't know whether they
are being well treated. We don't know whether they are being housed with
common criminals in federal prisons. We don't know whether these persons
are being allowed to contact family members or legal counsel.
'My Arab-American clients are afraid -- afraid to go out to a movie,
afraid to go to work, afraid to go shopping, afraid to go to a
restaurant. And my clients who appear to be of Arab descent are afraid
-- afraid of being arrested, detained, questioned, harassed, or worse,
attacked.'
Other lawyers and human rights groups have challenged the new
legislation. On 5 December, the first lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and
other groups in the U.S. District Court or the District of Columbia,
claiming that the U.S. government is violating the Constitution and
federal law by withholding basic information about some 1,000 people
picked up by police since the terror attacks. Although Attorney General
John Ashcroft and other U.S. Justice Department officials have released fragments of information they refused to reveal names or locations of detainees.
The complaint further declares that 'This secrecy is unprecedented and
deprives the public of information it is lawfully entitled to
receive.' Immediate release of government documents that civil rights
groups requested in October is demanded.
'We will obviously review the suit,' Justice Department spokeswoman
Mindy Tucker said. 'The attorney general has been very clear about why
certain information will not be released.' With his usual penchant for
distorting the truth, Ashcroft claimed that he knew of no lawsuits
filed to challenge the government's arrest and detention of people,
mainly from Muslim countries, who 'might' have some connection with
'terrorism.'
A fundamental problem with mounting a court challenge is that so little
is known about those detained. Lawyers would have to know basics about a
case to claim that someone's civil rights were violated. Although the
lawsuit of 5 December seeks the kind of information that lawyers would
need to take individual cases to court, it unfortunately does not
challenge the government's right to arrest or detain anyone. When the
Executive Branch of the Government unilaterally suspends the application
of the rule of law in favour of exercising authority at its sole
discretion, this is the first step on the path to a dictatorship.
Secret evidence and the use of military tribunals to judge civilians are
frightening. More frightening still is the recent suggestion, rather
widely approved, to use torture in interrogations of 'terror suspects'.
Again, although the American public as well as the international community
have been told that these 'extraordinary measures' are a necessary 'response'
to the attacks of 11 September, quite clearly, this is not the case.
The government began to attack the structure of basic human rights and liberties long before 11 September.
In February 2001, the Terrorist Act 2001 took effect in England. This
act allows prosecution of people alleged to 'endanger lives through the
manipulation of public computer systems' under the anti-terrorism law as
would any other terrorist. "There isn't a specific section that deals
with cybercrime as such, it is covered within the various sections, but
anyone who seriously interferes with, or seriously disrupts an
electronic system will be dealt with under the anti-terrorism law,' said
a spokesman for the Home Office, the government department that oversees
immigration and crime.
The Terrorism Act was intended to extend the definition of what is
legally defined as a terrorist. The definition now includes, along
with resistance groups such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or
Hizbullah, any U.K.-based group planning an attack outside of the U.K.
or any group threatening or planning 'serious violence' within the U.K.
That can include hackers or political protestors if their actions or
intentions 'turn violent,' declared a spokesman for the Government.
Under the new powers, the police now have the authority to determine
what they deem to be 'violent' and who they feel comes under the legal
definition of a 'terrorist.' The vague nature of the Terrorism Act
immediately came under criticism from the Government Opposition as well
as human rights activists. Since 11 September, unfortunately, the
scope of so-called 'anti-terrorist' legislation in the U.K. has widened.
Here in the U.S., passage of an outrageous statute known as the Patriot
Act has widened the U.S. government's powers of surveillance
considerably. Not only can the government punish individuals for simply
being sympathetic to resistance groups considered to be 'terrorist' by
the U.S., but also it no longer needs to conform to ordinary rules of
conduct and evidence in gathering its secret evidence. Use of internet
surveillance and 'roving taps' will allow the government to invade the privacy of any individual it deems suspect. Section 216 [of the Patriot Act] amends the pen register statute to make it clear that Internet communications are subject to pen
register authority. The enforcement agency may acquire 'routing and
addressing' information in addition to 'dialling and signalling'
information. The addressing information may include who is copied on the
message as well as its intended recipient. The pen register amendment
also allows federal law enforcement agencies to obtain a single pen
register order that may be implemented anywhere in the country. No longer will the service provider need to be named expressly in the order, nor will the carrier need to ensure that the information acquired had been intended for delivery within a particular federal court's jurisdiction.
Executive Order 13224, blocking property and prohibiting transactions
with persons who 'commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism' is
the final nail in the coffin of freedom. Junior George Bush, purporting
to act 'by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, including the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies
Act,' etc. by this Order declared a State of Emergency and gave the U.S.
government the power to block property belonging to any individual or
entity that the U.S. government might consider to be giving support of
any kind to a 'terrorist organisation' as defined solely by the U.S.
government. The pertinent clauses of the Order are copied at the end of this article because it is important that every one be aware of its scope. Basically, the Order provides the government with almost unlimited power to confiscate property belonging to any one for purely political reasons, on the grounds that the individual or entity has demonstrated support (whether material or moral) to any
group, organisation, or individual labelled as 'terrorist' by the U.S.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government now can do almost
anything it pleases where non-citizens are concerned and far more than
is constitutional in legal terms in its dealings with its citizens. A
'State of War', prolonged indefinitely, will give Junior Bush, as
Executive, almost unlimited powers. The old 'balance of power'
envisioned by John Locke, upon which the U.S. government was founded, is
no longer a reality. The Executive Branch in time of war, is allowed to
operate independently and indeed is doing so.
Nor will this 'State of War' be allowed to end with the defeat of the
Taliban. With far-sighted determination, Junior Bush declared from the
very start that ANY nation or group that supported 'terrorism' or
'terrorists' would be fair game. Even before his campaign of terror
against the Taliban, Bush hinted that Iraq might be next. Terror, like
treason, is defined by politics. Junior Bush is not about to relinquish
the power he has taken as Commander in Chief, and thus, his spurious
'State of War' is likely to be indefinite, allowing him to usurp more
and more power and to further weaken the balance of power which is the foundation of American democracy. By periodically issuing warnings of possible 'terrorist attacks', the American public can be kept in a state of fear and insecurity, increasingly dependent upon the strong arm of its President. Frequent reminders in the form of graphic photographs and videos of the wreckage of the World Trade
Centre serve to revitalise the rage and indignation of the American
people against 'those folks', as George Bush refers to perceived enemies
of the American capitalist society.
Possibly the most sinister implication of all of this is the realisation
that Bush's actions are NOT a response to the attacks of 11 September
but were a pre-conceived aim. Economic contracts with the Zionists
dealing with the construction of a pipeline for natural gas in
Afghanistan signed 10 years ago necessitated the eventual defeat of the
Taliban who had no interest in facilitating American/Zionist economic
success. With respect to the 'special relationship' between the U.S.
and the Zionist entity, the attacks of 11 September have been used to
strengthen the bonds between the two. In September, immediately after
the hijackings in the States, Butcher Sharon announced to the world that
the Zionists and the Americans now were both victims of 'terrorism', and
that the U.S. now would understand that ALL actions could be justified when dealing with 'terrorists'. Much of the world was outraged by Sharon's statement at the time, and yet, three months later, Bush has incorporated all of the Zionist policies of State-sponsored terrorism in his own programme and has thrown the full
weight of U.S. support to the Zionist Terrorist entity. No longer is
there even an appearance of fairness in U.S. policy where Palestine is
concerned. Hamas, the P.F.L.P. and Hizbullah, all legitimate resistance
groups, are all on the list of 'terrorist organisations' published by
the U.S. By using the same techniques against resistance organisations
as the U.S. has been utilising in its 'war against drugs' for years, the
scope of government power to silence or destroy all opposition to its
policies and interests has become greater. By treating legitimate
charitable organisations like drug dealers, the U.S. has frozen assets
of groups that did nothing more than help oppressed people. Any
individual or charitable group NOT on the list, if accused of
'supporting' any of the listed organisations, is in danger of having all
assets seized or frozen as well. Unfortunately, the American public,
incited to hysteria by its own government after the hijackings of 11
September, blindly supports Bush's programme of 'security', not
realising that the real attacks upon freedom are being mounted by its
own leaders. Muslims and Arabs in this country, instead of loudly
protesting these outrages, are intimidated by threats to their own security, and foolishly and cravenly continue to publish declarations of support for Bush's 'war against TERROR'.
Junior Bush explains that he is not waging war either against Islam or
against the Arab Nation, but only against 'TERRORISM' when in fact he
clearly is waging a war against both. Unfortunately, if the Arab Nation
and Ummah internationally do not show any real unity in opposition to
the nefarious policies of the U.S., then there is no reason to expect
that Arabs and Muslims living within the U.S. will demonstrate any
courage either. By threatening the financial interests of Arabs and
Muslims, the U.S. government evidently has found an effective weapon to
use against anyone who dares to challenge U.S. policies either in the
U.S. or abroad. A threat to financial security is probably the most
potent means by which to divide and conquer opposition. In the
past, the U.S. managed to weaken Arab opposition to the Zionist entity
by buying the leaders of the Arab Nation. Now, it has found a way to
cut costs dramatically simply by threatening assets held by States,
organisations and individuals. Any money saved can be put towards
Bush's cherished aim to increase 'defence' capabilities, an ambition
decried before 11 September by the public but now considered vital to
the health and well-being of the United States.
Moreover, the American government has created another tool by which to
divide and conquer the Arab and Muslim Nations in the form of a bribe or
'inducement' for foreign nationals. Attorney General John Ashcroft has
recommended use of the 'S' non-immigrant visa for persons who may
provide information or assistance as witnesses in connection with the
'fight against terrorism.' He announced that the INS may ignore the visa
problems of foreign nationals who offer information about 'terrorists'
to the FBI. He declared that: 'The people who have the courage to make the right choice deserve to be welcomed as guests into our country and perhaps to one day become fellow citizens'.
The 'right choice' obviously is defined as unconditional acceptance of
U.S./Zionist interests and propaganda. Sadly, such offers will be
tempting to those who place personal security above any consideration of
morals and ethics. Again, if the Arab Nation and Muslim Ummah do not
demonstrate unity to challenge the U.S./Zionist alliance, its power
will increase until challenge no longer will be a viable option and the
only reality will be the dark reality of the American/Zionist 'dream'.
There remains a glimmer of hope, however, as Bush's 'war on terror' is
being challenged by a few Americans with courage and integrity.
Although the American public misguidedly has confidence in Bush and his
government, Boyd F. Campbell does not. With respect to the attacks of
11 September, he declared: 'The events of September 11 were evidence
that there was a tragic intelligence failure at the top levels of the
federal government. There can be no argument on this point. It was the
worst U.S. intelligence failure in more than 60 years. It will be a
long, long time before I have any confidence in the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service enforcement division and the Border Patrol, the
National Security Agency, the National Reconnaisance Office, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or any other federal government intelligence-gathering or law enforcement organisation.'
Unfortunately, an ongoing 'war' will allow George Bush to surf the wave
of popularity, continuing to divert the attention of the American public
away from the reality of a recession with job cuts that affect a large
percentage of families in the U.S. War makes good business, especially
for those who profit from the manufacture and sale of 'weapons of mass
destruction' in the United States. Paradoxically, while ranting against
'those folks' who are driven by desperate circumstances to armed
resistance, George Bush is doing everything possible to promote the
increase in U.S. weapons of mass destruction and to facilitate their use
abroad.
One need only look at the recent anthrax 'attack' in order to understand that the real threat to the American people comes from its own government, rather than from any 'foreign agents'. The real villain in this drama is not Usama bin Laden
but the home-grown terrorist named George Bush Jr. The American public
as well as the international community have to reject his vision of
reality or face consequences that ultimately will be far worse than the
hijackings of 11 September.
The worst kind of terrorism is State-sponsored terrorism, and the U.S. as well as the Zionist entity funded by the U.S. are at the top of the list. It is they who are the true enemies of freedom and justice. The American public and
international community must be willing to expose the illusions promoted
by these entities and reject their terrorist programmes or else be held
responsible for the atrocities they commit. The fact is that the
hijackings of 11 September were motivated by desperation and a sense
of anger at the U.S. for its arrogant, irresponsible, even criminal
foreign policies and frustration with the American people for their
ignorance and lack of intelligent interest in world affairs. Instead
of taking the attacks of 11 September as a warning, Americans have
chosen to support a President who is determined to outdo his
predecessors in acts of aggression and interference abroad. Murdering
resistance leaders and their followers will not end resistance to
oppression. The only way to end resistance is by dealing with the
causes of that resistance. Real security for the people of the United
States will be possible only when the U.S. begins to support the cause
of justice instead of giving its support to criminal regimes such
as the Zionist regime in Palestine.
Moreover, even if Bush, in his capacity as U.S. Executive, has provided
that foreign nationals shall not have the protection and rights given in
the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. remains bound by the United Nations
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was passed, signed and
ratified by Congress. The Covenant is constitutional as it has been
signed and ratified and can be amended; moreover, unlike a treaty, it
cannot be denounced.
Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that a
person has a right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal. This is pertinent not only to the
prisoners taken by the U.S. in its 'not-war' in Afghanistan, but is
applicable to any foreign nationals taken into custody under the
so-called 'anti-terrorist' legislation and Bush's intention to give
military tribunals jurisdiction over them.
The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is international law, and was
enacted precisely in order to give foreign nationals the same
inalienable constitutional rights that are delineated by the U.S.
Constitution. Even if the rights and protections provided by the U.S.
Constitution are abrogated by the U.S. Executive in the case of foreign
nationals, Bush remains bound by the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The sort of military tribunals which he is determined to create
clearly contravene the provisions of the Covenant, as a military
tribunal is neither independent nor impartial and thus, contravenes
international constitutional law.
In the same way in which Bush had predetermined his campaign against the
Taliban in Afghanistan from the very start, even when he insisted that
his target was Al Qaeda, he envisions the use of military tribunals in
all cases where his 'anti-terrorist' legislation is invoked. Although
the military tribunals will be created ostensibly to deal with the
prisoners of his 'not-war' in Afghanistan, he proposes that individuals
taken into custody pursuant to 'anti-terrorist' legislation be tried by
the same tribunals. Such tribunals clearly contravene international
constitutional law, however, and cannot be used legitimately either
against individuals taken prisoner in Afghanistan or those who are taken into custody in the United States.
To see the attachments to this piece:
a) Executive Order 13224, blocking property and prohibiting transactions
with persons who 'commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism',
b) Questions for FBI interviews, and
c) Article 14, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Albright's New Terrorist List
From the issue of Free Arab Voice published on 15 November 1997:
An in-depth analysis by Nabila Harb to the effect that Albright's new 'Terrorist List' is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and an attempt to stifle Arab-American political action.
ALBRIGHT'S NEW TERRORIST LIST
With the publication of a list of 30 foreign alleged 'terrorist'
organisations a few weeks ago, the U.S. government ushered in a new era
of intimidation for those who support causes that are unpopular with the
powers that be in this country.
The policy behind the McCarran-Walter Act, overturned by Congress in
1990, has been resurrected. Persons who are not citizens of the U.S. can
be refused entry solely because of humanitarian support of groups on a
political list. As far as U.S. citizens are concerned, they may be
imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined if they provide humanitarian
relief to institutions that are affiliated with the groups listed.
The list published by Secretary of State Albright was created pursuant
to a statute enacted in 1996 ostensibly in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing. One question that immediately comes to mind is: if this law was
enacted in response to that incident, why does it deal almost
exclusively with 'international terrorist organisations'? No foreign
'terrorist' groups were involved with the bombing!
Unfortunately, when the U.S. speaks of terrorists, it usually is
referring to various groups that are fighting for independence and
freedom in other countries, and once again, the U.S. is punishing the
wrong people for crimes committed by others.
What is the real purpose of this statute if not to combat terrorism?
Basically, whatever the law states, it is designed to punish individuals
who have the audacity to disagree with official U.S. interests abroad.
'National security' as defined in this statute is not only 'the national
defense' but 'foreign relations, or economic interests of the U.S.' as
well.
In other words, security is whatever the government wishes it to be, and
any organisation can be designated as a 'foreign terrorist organisation'
on this basis. It is clear that this is as arbitrary as the old laws of
treason, and the State here is declaring: 'you will be punished if I do
not agree with your aims, if your goals threaten my friends, or the
interests of my investors.'
The intent of this law is intimidation, pure and simple. "Here is a list
of our enemies, whom we intend to crush in any manner at our disposal,
whether open or covert, legal or illegal.' The statute does in fact
encourage the President to 'use all necessary means, including covert
action and military force' in pursuit of this goal.
There are echoes here of the official Israeli reaction to its botched
assassination attempt a few weeks ago, which was to override any
considerations of the sovereignty of other nations or international law
to state an intention to continue with such attempts. An attempted
murder on foreign soil: if this is not international terrorism, what is?
What are the practical implications of this law? Now, to use an example
given by the ADC, if a person were to donate blankets to a hospital
associated with Hamas or to an orphanage connected to Hezbollah, that
person could be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The offence is giving
'material support or resources' to any group on the list and 'material
support or resources' is defined as any 'physical assets' including,
inter alia, 'lodging, communications equipment, personnel and
transportation'.
Thus, support or resources could be as simple a matter as the loan of a
car, a telephone, a bed for the night, or the offer to perform any task,
however innocent, for some one connected to one of these groups.
Questions of proof, because secret evidence is allowed here, become
difficult to assess. This is different from cases involving the
Communist Party, as membership in organisations such as these is not a
matter of carrying a card.
As Greg Nojeim, counsel for the ACLU, stated, with respect to law's
application to immigration, 'By expanding the bar to admission to mere
membership in a group, the government now decides which ideas from
abroad Americans can hear, and which ideas it believes are too dangerous
for us to hear. These groups do not distribute membership cards.
Inevitably, the government will bar as 'members' of foreign terrorist
organisations individuals who give speeches in support of the political
goals of the group, not men or women who are actually dangerous.'
Above all, what is unconscionable here is the attempt by Congress to
prohibit all aid to the humanitarian organisations to which these groups
are connected. In many areas, particularly in some of the Palestinian
refugee camps, schools, medical clinics and orphanages are run by
members of these political groups. To deny humanitarian aid to these
institutions is an abomination. The spurious reasoning Congress gives is
this:
That 'foreign organisations that engage in terrorist activity are so
tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an
organisation facilitates that
conduct.'
Prohibition of humanitarian aid is an outrage; it may be
unconstitutional as well.
So far, there has been no direct challenge of this law, except for a
challenge by House Members as to the presence of the Iranian Mujahadeen
as a foreign terrorist organisation on the list. Those challenging its
inclusion called the Mujahadeen 'a legitimate resistance against one of
the most brutal dictatorships in modern history'.
There are those who would describe Hamas and Hezbollah in comparable
terms, as well as other organisations placed on this list. This call for
review on the part of House members only emphasises the arbitrary nature
of a list of this sort, which is solely based on policy rather than on
any real rule of law. When is armed struggle a legitimate means of
winning freedom? When is a movement legitimate and when is it a
'terrorist' organisation? The answer here is: when the U.S. says so.
Although there has been no challenge in constitutional terms as of yet,
this statute will be fought.
Human rights groups are determined not to allow this to go unchallenged.
Meanwhile, Arab-Americans and Muslims follow their consciences at their
own risk.
There will be more cases of deportation based on secret 'evidence' such
as that used to deport Ali Termos recently. Surveillance will increase,
and the U.S. government no doubt will continue to create the illusion
that terrorism flows naturally from the spring of Islam in the Arab
world.
It is an illusion that has served this State well, allowing it to
protect many of its sordid economic interests under the guise of
defending 'democracy' and other inspiring concepts, equally false.
An in-depth analysis by Nabila Harb to the effect that Albright's new 'Terrorist List' is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and an attempt to stifle Arab-American political action.
ALBRIGHT'S NEW TERRORIST LIST
With the publication of a list of 30 foreign alleged 'terrorist'
organisations a few weeks ago, the U.S. government ushered in a new era
of intimidation for those who support causes that are unpopular with the
powers that be in this country.
The policy behind the McCarran-Walter Act, overturned by Congress in
1990, has been resurrected. Persons who are not citizens of the U.S. can
be refused entry solely because of humanitarian support of groups on a
political list. As far as U.S. citizens are concerned, they may be
imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined if they provide humanitarian
relief to institutions that are affiliated with the groups listed.
The list published by Secretary of State Albright was created pursuant
to a statute enacted in 1996 ostensibly in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing. One question that immediately comes to mind is: if this law was
enacted in response to that incident, why does it deal almost
exclusively with 'international terrorist organisations'? No foreign
'terrorist' groups were involved with the bombing!
Unfortunately, when the U.S. speaks of terrorists, it usually is
referring to various groups that are fighting for independence and
freedom in other countries, and once again, the U.S. is punishing the
wrong people for crimes committed by others.
What is the real purpose of this statute if not to combat terrorism?
Basically, whatever the law states, it is designed to punish individuals
who have the audacity to disagree with official U.S. interests abroad.
'National security' as defined in this statute is not only 'the national
defense' but 'foreign relations, or economic interests of the U.S.' as
well.
In other words, security is whatever the government wishes it to be, and
any organisation can be designated as a 'foreign terrorist organisation'
on this basis. It is clear that this is as arbitrary as the old laws of
treason, and the State here is declaring: 'you will be punished if I do
not agree with your aims, if your goals threaten my friends, or the
interests of my investors.'
The intent of this law is intimidation, pure and simple. "Here is a list
of our enemies, whom we intend to crush in any manner at our disposal,
whether open or covert, legal or illegal.' The statute does in fact
encourage the President to 'use all necessary means, including covert
action and military force' in pursuit of this goal.
There are echoes here of the official Israeli reaction to its botched
assassination attempt a few weeks ago, which was to override any
considerations of the sovereignty of other nations or international law
to state an intention to continue with such attempts. An attempted
murder on foreign soil: if this is not international terrorism, what is?
What are the practical implications of this law? Now, to use an example
given by the ADC, if a person were to donate blankets to a hospital
associated with Hamas or to an orphanage connected to Hezbollah, that
person could be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The offence is giving
'material support or resources' to any group on the list and 'material
support or resources' is defined as any 'physical assets' including,
inter alia, 'lodging, communications equipment, personnel and
transportation'.
Thus, support or resources could be as simple a matter as the loan of a
car, a telephone, a bed for the night, or the offer to perform any task,
however innocent, for some one connected to one of these groups.
Questions of proof, because secret evidence is allowed here, become
difficult to assess. This is different from cases involving the
Communist Party, as membership in organisations such as these is not a
matter of carrying a card.
As Greg Nojeim, counsel for the ACLU, stated, with respect to law's
application to immigration, 'By expanding the bar to admission to mere
membership in a group, the government now decides which ideas from
abroad Americans can hear, and which ideas it believes are too dangerous
for us to hear. These groups do not distribute membership cards.
Inevitably, the government will bar as 'members' of foreign terrorist
organisations individuals who give speeches in support of the political
goals of the group, not men or women who are actually dangerous.'
Above all, what is unconscionable here is the attempt by Congress to
prohibit all aid to the humanitarian organisations to which these groups
are connected. In many areas, particularly in some of the Palestinian
refugee camps, schools, medical clinics and orphanages are run by
members of these political groups. To deny humanitarian aid to these
institutions is an abomination. The spurious reasoning Congress gives is
this:
That 'foreign organisations that engage in terrorist activity are so
tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an
organisation facilitates that
conduct.'
Prohibition of humanitarian aid is an outrage; it may be
unconstitutional as well.
So far, there has been no direct challenge of this law, except for a
challenge by House Members as to the presence of the Iranian Mujahadeen
as a foreign terrorist organisation on the list. Those challenging its
inclusion called the Mujahadeen 'a legitimate resistance against one of
the most brutal dictatorships in modern history'.
There are those who would describe Hamas and Hezbollah in comparable
terms, as well as other organisations placed on this list. This call for
review on the part of House members only emphasises the arbitrary nature
of a list of this sort, which is solely based on policy rather than on
any real rule of law. When is armed struggle a legitimate means of
winning freedom? When is a movement legitimate and when is it a
'terrorist' organisation? The answer here is: when the U.S. says so.
Although there has been no challenge in constitutional terms as of yet,
this statute will be fought.
Human rights groups are determined not to allow this to go unchallenged.
Meanwhile, Arab-Americans and Muslims follow their consciences at their
own risk.
There will be more cases of deportation based on secret 'evidence' such
as that used to deport Ali Termos recently. Surveillance will increase,
and the U.S. government no doubt will continue to create the illusion
that terrorism flows naturally from the spring of Islam in the Arab
world.
It is an illusion that has served this State well, allowing it to
protect many of its sordid economic interests under the guise of
defending 'democracy' and other inspiring concepts, equally false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)