The Myth of Capitalism ~ We have Creditism


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnCOQ96dVgA&feature=player_embedded#!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and
was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is the World Too Big to Fail? The Contours of Global Order ~ Noam Chomsky


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20110421.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The men who crashed the world


http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/meltdown/2011/09/2011914105518615434.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lehman Brothers’ presidential connections


http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/tag/neuberger-investment-management-george-walker/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

We need some help


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ZbzzIhS-w

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Goldman Sach 2010 Annual Report


http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886982/000095012311020067/y88213e10vk.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mr Record Man ~ Willie Nelson


Willie Nelson ~ Mr. record Man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHw4d7RPvF4

Patsy Cline ~ Crazy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0rh3srL2oc&feature=related

Willie Nelson ~ Crazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwS6FL_WgoI&feature=related

Patsy Cline: Back in Baby’s arms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6JpVmZb4bI&feature=related

Patsy Cline ~ I fall to pieces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG-8uZg2uV0&feature=related

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Guantanamo Bay Issue Brief (Lite)


CASE FACTS

In Padilla v. RumsfeldJose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in Chicago’s O’Hare  International Airport after returning from Pakistan in 2002. He was initially
detained as a material witness in the government’s investigation of the al
Qaeda terrorist network, but was later declared an “enemy combatant”
by the Department of Defense, meaning that he could be held in prison
indefinitely without access to an attorney or to the courts. The FBI claimed
that he was returning to the United States to carry out acts of terrorism. (Oyez–US Supreme Court  Media–Rumsfeld v. Padilla, n.d.)

Donna Newman, who had represented him while he was being
held as a material witness, filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Newman
had standing to file the petition despite the fact that Padilla had been moved
to a military brig in South Carolina. However, the court also found that the
Department of Defense, under the President’s constitutional powers as Commander
in Chief and the statutory authorization provided by Congress’s Authorization
for Use of Military Force, had the power to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant.
The district judge rejected Newman’s argument that the detention was prohibited
by the federal Non-Detention Act, which states that no “citizen shall be
imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act
of Congress.” (ibid.)

On appeal, a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals  panel reversed the district court’s “enemy combatant” ruling. The  panel found that the Authorization for Use of Military force did not meet the  requirement of the Non-Detention Act and that the President could not,  therefore, declare American citizens captured outside a combat zone as enemy
combatants. (ibid.)

In Ex Parte Quirin–These cases concern  Operation Pastorius, a failed attempt in June 1942 by Nazi agents to sabotage  various U.S. targets. Following the declaration of war between the United  States and Germany, eight German residents, Richard Quirin, Ernst Burger,  George Dasch, Herbert Haupt, Heinrich Heinck, Edward Keiling, Herman Neubauer,  and Werener Thiel, received training on sabotage at a school near Berlin. The
men traveled to the United States via submarine. On the night of June 13, 1942,
Burger, Heinrich, Quirin, and Dasch landed near Long Island, New York wearing
German uniforms and carrying explosives. On the night of June 17, 1942, the remaining
four came ashore in similar fashion at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Shortly
after the landings, Burger and Dasch backed out of the mission. Dasch turned
himself in to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. All eight conspirators were
subsequently arrested and, on the orders of President Franklin Roosevelt, tried
by military commission. (Oyez–US  Supreme Court Media–Ex parte Quirin, 1942)

The commission found all eight men guilty and sentenced  them to death. Because of their confessions and cooperation, President  Roosevelt later commuted Burger and Dasch’s sentences to life in prison.  Arguing that the President exceeded his power in ordering the commission and  that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution protect their rights to  a regular trial, seven of the eight conspirators, not including Dasch, filed
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. Their  claims were denied, and they appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  District of Columbia. Before the court ruled, however, they filed for hearing  before the Supreme Court and, separately, filed petitions for habeas corpus  directly with the Court. The Court, sitting in a special term, agreed to hear  the cases. (ibid.)

In  Hamdi v. Rumsfeld–In the fall of 2001, Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was arrested by the United States military in Afghanistan. He was accused of fighting for the
Taliban against the U.S., declared an “enemy combatant,” and transferred  to a military prison in Virginia. Frank Dunham, Jr., a defense attorney in Virginia, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in federal district court  there, first on his own and then for Hamdi’s father, in an attempt to have  Hamdi’s detention declared unconstitutional. He argued that the government had violated Hamdi’s Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely and not giving him access to an attorney or a trial. The government countered that the Executive Branch had the right, during wartime, to declare people who fight against the United States “enemy combatants” and thus restrict their access to the court system. (Oyez–US Supreme Court Media–Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, n.d.)

The district court ruled for Hamdi, telling the government to release him. On appeal, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, finding that the separation of powers required federal courts to practice restraint during wartime because “the executive and legislative branches are organized to supervise the conduct of overseas conflict in a way
that the judiciary simply is not.” The panel therefore found that it should defer to the Executive Branch’s “enemy combatant” determination. (ibid.) 

ARGUMENT

Just like today, protecting Intel was a factor during WWII. The history of the Nazi saboteurs serve as a reasonable precedent for GB, such that military commissions were secret, swift, and successful, and that the judicial branch would not substantively hinder the President on matters of national security. The 1942 trial became the prosecution template for detainees in the global war on terrorism. Combine this with the view that without uniforms detainees are unlawful enemy combatants exempted from Geneva Convention protections. It is internationally accepted as a right to detain enemy combatants for the duration of an armed conflict, and the War on Terrorism is ongoing. (Davis, 2008)

Moreover, there was a supposed belief that GB being outside the US was beyond the reach of the US courts, which would maximize executive authority. In other words, the US could detain and exploit enemy combatants at GB for as long as they wanted–free of judicial interference. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Court concluded that the conspirators, being without uniform and having the purpose of sabotage, violated the law of war and were therefore unlawful enemy combatants. That Congress had, under the Articles of War, authorized trial by military commission for unlawful enemy combatants. The Court therefore
determined that the President had not exceeded his power, and the Fifth and
Sixth Amendments “did not enlarge the [detainees] right to jury trial” (ibid.)

The contrary opinion is that when we (the US) employ and condone extraordinary measures, we weaken our moral authority to condemn others when they do the same. That Americans can also become prisoners of war, or merely detainees in a foreign land—and we should keep this in mind. Lloyd Cutler, the youngest of the prosecutors in the 1942 trial, published an article in December 2001, suggesting the accused be allowed access to the federal courts with minimized secret proceedings, and to ensure each accused had competent representation by his counsel of choice, because, “in a very real sense, it is the American legal system, not just al Qaeda‘s leaders, that [will] be on trial.” (ibid.)

The US government argued that, as “unlawful combatants,” both Padilla and Hamdi should continue to be detained in accordance with the “laws and customs of war,” which would mean they have no rights as criminal defendants or, for that matter, as civil detainees under the U.S. Constitution. This precludes rights to due process, counsel, bail, or a speedy trial and leaves them awaiting resolution of their cases by courts before which they have never appeared, represented by lawyers with whom they have never spoken. That Military tribunals, not civil justice are lawful treatment under Quirin for “unlawful enemy combatants,” (Kanstroom, 2003)

According to a Report for Congress, the Supreme Court in 2004 issued three decisions related to the detention of “enemy combatants,” including two that deal with US citizens
in military custody on American soil. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court in plurality held that a US citizen allegedly captured during combat in Afghanistan and incarcerated at a Navy brig in South Carolina is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision maker regarding the government’s reasons for detaining him. The Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla overturned a lower court’s grant of habeas corpus to another US citizen in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds. The decisions affirmed the President’s powers to detain “enemy combatants”, including those who are US citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (Elsea, 2005)

However the Court appears to have limited the scope of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority, and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the US Constitution. The Department of Justice argues that the recent decisions, coupled with two World War II era cases, Ex parte Quirin and In re
Territo
, support its contention that the President may order that certain U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens be held as enemy combatants pursuant to the law of war and Article II of the Constitution. Critics, however, question whether the decisions permit the detention of US citizens captured away from any actual battlefield, in order to prevent terrorist acts or gather intelligence; and some argue that Congress has prohibited such detention of US
citizens when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 001(a).(ibid.)

Another view is the U.S. war crimes tribunals at GB have betrayed the principles of
fairness that made the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg a judicial landmark…
and “it violates the Nuremberg principles, what they’re doing, as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.” According to Henry King, the chief prosecutor at the trials created by the Allied powers to try Nazi military and political leaders after WWII in Nuremberg, Germany. (Sutton, 2007)

King, who interrogated Nuremberg defendant Albert Speer, was incredulous that the GB
rules left open the possibility of using evidence obtained through coercion. The concept of a fair trial is part of our tradition, our heritage,” King said … “That’s what made Nuremberg so immortal — fairness, a presumption of innocence, adequate defense counsel, opportunities to see the documents that they’re being tried with.” (ibid.)

CONCLUSION

In Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, 2004, the Supreme Court declared that a US citizen who is being held as an enemy combatant by the military must be allowed to challenge his detention in civil courts. The Court overruled the government’s claim that he should be held as an enemy combatant and instead he must be given the same privileges and rights given to any citizen charged with a crime. (Revolutionary War and Beyond, n.d.)

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Justice Ginsburg dissenting from the Court’s decision to decline the case, notes; “Nothing the Government has done purports to retract the assertion of Executive power that Padilla protests.”  Which basically means the executive can still arbitrarily detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. on the grounds they are “enemy combatants” and hold them without charge or trial for years. And until charged or released such a detainee has no remedy for this unlawful detention before the case works its way up to the Supreme Court. (Human Rights Watch, 2006)

Notwithstanding, on June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that even the GB captives were entitled to the protection of the US Constitution. (The
Washington Times, 2008) that is, foreign terrorism suspects held at GB also have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. (Sherman, 2008) The so-called We-Can-Do-Anything-We-Want-Because-We Say-So doctrine has been reversed as a judicial evolution springing from the Padilla and Hamdi cases,
but unlawful detention and abuse of human rights at GB and elsewhere may continue as long as there are substantive terrorist concerns for our Homeland Security.

References

Davis, M. D. (2008). THE INFLUENCE OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AND COURTS-MARTIAL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from  http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2008/34/LRColl2008n34Davis.pdf

Elsea, J. (2005). Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31724.pdf

Human Rights Watch. (2006). Human Rights Watch on the Jose Padilla Case. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/02/human-rights-watch-jose-padilla-case

Kanstroom, D. (2003). “Unlawful Combatants” in the United States: Drawing the Fine Line between Law and War. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_winter03_unlawful.html

Oyez–US Supreme Court Media–Ex parte Quirin. (1942). Ex parte Quirin. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1941/1941_1_ORIG

Oyez–US Supreme Court Media–Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. (n.d.). Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_6696/

Oyez–US Supreme Court Media–Rumsfeld v. Padilla. (n.d.). Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Retrieved July 7, 2011, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_1027

Revolutionary War and Beyond. (n.d.). Fifth Amendment Court Cases – Grand Jury Exception Clause – Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. Retrieved July 9,  2011, from  http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/fifth-amendment-court-cases-grand-jury-exception-clause.html

Sherman, M. (2008). High Court: Gitmo Detainees Have Rights in Court. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from  http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422204998&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Sutton, J. (2007). Nuremberg prosecutor says Guantanamo trials unfair. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/11/us-guantanamo-nuremberg-idUSN6B38479920070611

The Washington Times. (2008). Court backs rights for Gitmo detainees. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/12/high-court-gitmo-detainees-have-rights-in-court/

Posted in Disasters, LIBERAL studies, POLITICS | Leave a comment

I am an Indian aka “Injun” on this Father’s day, i.e I am a Father of an “injun”! On this matter, I am sure!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment