eh Ansari, who "offers uncommon insight into life on the International Space Station," in particular "the hazards of washing hair in zero gravity," according to the Australian.

On the Google News page this morning, mention of the Detainee bill is nowhere to be found, whereas "Anna Nicole Smith's exchange of vows with her lawyer Howard K. Stern on a boat near Nassau" is all the rage, as the Boston Globe would have it.

Determinedly keyboarding in "detainee bill" on the Google News Search page returns mundane results, headed by a Los Angeles Times article declaring the "complex bill," wrangled through "backroom negotiations," will give Republicans "a rhetorical club to use against Democrats on terrorism" come the midterm elections.

Trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and blotting out specific mention of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus," enshrined in Article One, section nine, represents a long sought after coup de grâce, far worse than even Lincoln's suspension on April 27, 1861, during the "Civil War," more accurately described as a war waged by the federal government against states declaring their intent to secede from the "Union." Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and set-up military courts to persecute Copperheads, a faction of Democrats in the North who opposed Lincoln's war against the South.

As an example of what we can expect in the months ahead, consider Clement Vallandigham, leader of the Order of the Sons of Liberty, who denounced "King Lincoln" and demanded his dethronement. Vallandigham, an Ohio politician, was arrested as a violator of General Order No. 38, issued by General Ambrose E. Burnside, denied a writ of habeas corpus, convicted by a military tribunal of "uttering disloyal sentiments," and sentenced to two years of internment in a military prison.

In Ex parte Milligan, an important United States Supreme Court case involving civilians and military tribunals, the Court, according to Wikipedia, "decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war…. It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement."

Ex parte Milligan left unaddressed the president's ability to suspend habeas corpus independently of Congress. Of course, all of that is now water under the bridge, as Congress, brimming with neocon sycophants, has slavishly deferred to King Bush, who has joked that it would be "easier" to rule as a dictator.

Copperhead Democrats may have gone up against the Republican Lincoln—who we are told saved the republic and freed the slaves (in fact, Lincoln was a racist who wanted to ethnically cleanse Blacks from America; see Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream)—but we should not expect such hardihood from the current crop of Democrats, many who indeed voted against Bush's detainee bill but don't have what it takes for sustained opposition to the neocon drive to dismember the Constitution.

As presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton characterized it, Democrats who voted against the Schmittian detainee bill put "winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terror," according to the New York Times. "Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat up for re-election who often breaks with his party, said he was willing to follow the lead of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lent the final legislation his strong endorsement," apparently a slick move on Nelson's part as John "Keating Five" McCain, friend of racketeers and Mafia dons (Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, head of the New York Bonano crime family), is yet another presidential hopeful, a man with all the power and personality of a waterfront syndicate boss.

If you go into a backroom with dogs, however, you're going to come out with fleas. "Nelson, a Democratic senator from Tallahassee, supported a failed amendment that would have retained habeas corpus rights…. Nelson said he welcomes legal challenges to the bill," according to the Gainesville Sun. In the meantime, thugs in black vans will be free to disappear Mr. Nelson's relatives and friends, that is if King George deems them a threat to the war on terr'ism, that is to say the manufactured terrorist threat engineered to provide a pretext to invade small countries where putative haters of our freedoms reside.

As the blogger Adam Ash explains, the term enemy combatant "means a legal non-person. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben likens them to the first humans to be so designated, under Roman law a few millennia ago. They didn't call them 'enemy combatants' then, they called them 'homo sacer'. This was a human being who could be killed by anyone, without the killer ever being guilty of homicide."

In fact, the idea of homo sacer was contrived as an excuse to impose justitium, or a state of exception, that is to say a suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of martial law. Agamben argues, "the so-called sacred and inalienable rights of man prove to be completely unprotected at the very moment it is no longer possible to characterize them as rights of the citizens of a state."

Indeed, our civil liberties, enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and once considered our birthright, as Agamben would have it, may no longer be characterized thus, as they were systematically plowed under the manure of tyranny on the day after "everything changed," including a liberal tradition (as in classic liberalism, as opposed to social liberalism) spanning back to the Magna Carta Libertatum, originally issued in 1215.

Finally, as a side note, it should be remembered that the Levellers, a mid-17th century English political movement, believed the only traceable right of their day going back to the Magna Carta was due process. In our day, not even due process of law, as formerly spelled out in the Fifth Amendment, has survived the onslaught of the neocons, who are at base nothing more or less than followers of the Nazi crown jurist Carl Schmitt and his "Die Diktatur" philosophy.

In America, the Reichspräsident rules supreme, and now shall issue lettres de cachet, arbitrary orders issued directly from the king, not subject to appeal.

But never mind. If you're feeling glum over the turn of events, you can always retreat to Cook Island with Survivor members of the Aitutaki tribe, even if as a passive spectator on the receiving end of the idiot tube.

****************************************************

History Should Record October 17, 2006, as the Reverse of July 4, 1776 --Shame on us All

By Robert Parry

October 18, 2006

History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.

From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing "unalienable rights" as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading "Protecting America."

On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other "unlawful combatants," including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

"It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel "star chamber" system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.

The law strips "unlawful combatants" and their alleged fellow-travelers of the fundamental right of habeas corpus, meaning that they can’t challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, at least not until after they are brought before a military tribunal, tried under special secrecy rules and then sentenced.

One of the catches, however, is that with habeas corpus suspended these suspects have no guarantee of a swift trial and can theoretically be jailed indefinitely at the President’s discretion. Given the endless nature of the "global war on terror," suspects could disappear forever into the dark hole of unlimited executive authority, their fate hidden even from their families.

While incarcerated, the "unlawful combatants" and their cohorts can be subjected to coercive interrogations with their words used against them if and when they are brought to trial as long as a military judge approves.

The military tribunals also could use secret evidence to prosecute a wide range of "disloyal" American citizens as well as anti-American non-citizens. The procedures are similar to "star chambers," which have been employed historically by absolute monarchs and totalitarian states.

Even after the prosecutions are completed, the President could keep details secret. While an annual report must be made to Congress about the military tribunals, the President can conceal whatever information he chooses in a classified annex.

False Confidence

When Congress was debating the military tribunal law in September, some Americans were reassured to hear that the law would apply to non-U.S. citizens, such as legal resident aliens and foreigners. Indeed, the law does specify that "illegal enemy combatants" must be aliens who allegedly have attacked U.S. targets or those of U.S. military allies.

But the law goes much further when it addresses what can happen to people alleged to have given aid and comfort to America’s enemies. According to the law’s language, even American citizens who are accused of helping terrorists can be shunted into the military tribunal system where they could languish indefinitely without constitutional protections.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," the law states.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …

"Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct. …

"Any person subject to this chapter who conspires to commit one of the more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission … may direct." [Emphases added]

In other words, a wide variety of alleged crimes, including some specifically targeted at citizens with "an allegiance or duty to the United States," would be transferred from civilian courts to military tribunals, where habeas corpus and other constitutional rights would not apply.

Secret Trials

Secrecy, not the principle of openness, dominates these curious trials.

Under the military tribunal law, a judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it "possesses sufficient probative value" and "the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence "while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable."

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a "national security privilege" that could stop "the examination of any witness," presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

The prosecution also would retain the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the military judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. For the defense, however, the law states that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."

Further, the law states "no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."

In effect, that provision amounts to a broad amnesty for all U.S. officials, including President Bush and other senior executives who may have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights.

Beyond that amnesty provision, the law grants President Bush the authority "to interpret the meaning and the application of the Geneva Conventions."

In signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush remarked that "one of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America." Pausing for dramatic effect, Bush added, "He didn’t get his wish."

Or, perhaps, the terrorist did.