http://musliminsuffer.wordpress.com/
bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
=== News Update ===
Web Of Terror - Dictatorship
Jennifer Van Bergen
September 25, 2006
Jennifer Van Bergen is a journalist with a law degree. Her book The
Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America has been called a
“primer for citizenship.” She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Five years later, George W. Bush’s “war on terror” has morphed into (as
he calls it) a “War on Terra”—an assault on the life and values of the
United States and the planet—including our judicial system. Take for
example, the sweeping scope of the “terror cases” that have surfaced so
far. As the Washington Post noted recently, nine out of 10 of the terror
cases brought by the Justice Department since 9/11 did “not result in
prosecutions." In these cases, “most charges [were] not related to
terrorism and … only about a third of those prosecuted end up in
prison.”
As ordinary people without any connection to terrorist organizations are
swept up into George Bush’s war, there are three specific cases that
should be carefully watched as especially troubling bellwethers. They
are emblematic of how much ground has already been ceded to Bush’s
attack on our liberties, and as it happens, the latest developments will
be unfolding this month even as the fifth anniversary of the “attack on
our freedoms” is commemorated.
The first case involves an American citizen being detained in Iraq by
the U.S. military. His name is Shawqi Ahmad Omar. A hearing was held on
September 11, 2006, in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit to determine whether U.S. courts may even hear his petition. His
attorneys contend that because Omar is held by U.S. forces, a U.S. court
may rule on the legality of his detention. The Justice Department,
representing U.S. military authorities, argued that a U.S. court can’t
decide the fate of an individual held overseas under what they claim is
the authority of multinational forces—despite their admission that Omar
is held by the U.S.
The Justice Department was appealing a district court ruling that
prohibited the U.S. from transferring Omar into Iraqi custody and
permitted the court to further hear the case on its merits, which the
government argued was beyond its jurisdiction.
In some ways, the Omar case echoes two cases already ruled on by the
Supreme Court: the Hamdi case, which involved a U.S. citizen held as an
enemy combatant in a military brig in the U.S. without access to
attorneys or courts, and the Rasul case, which questioned the authority
of the U.S. government to detain non-citizens at Guantanamo, also
without access to their attorneys or to courts. The Supreme Court held
in Rasul that Guantanamo detainees may challenge their detentions in
U.S. courts, even though they are not citizens and Guantanamo is not
U.S. territory, because detainees were nonetheless exclusively in U.S.
control. In the Hamdi case, the High Court held that an enemy combatant
may challenge his detention by military authorities.
Despite the Hamdi and Rasul decisions—and despite another recent Supreme
Court decision that ruled the Geneva Conventions and international laws
of war apply to the war on terror—the U.S. government continues to argue
that U.S. individuals it detains outside U.S. territory are outside the
jurisdiction of U.S. courts, that it may refuse them access to their
attorneys, interrogate them, even beat and torture them, and then
transfer them out of U.S. control, as they please.
The Omar cases raises the same questions all over again that were raised
and should have been settled by the Hamdi, Rasul, and Hamdan (the case
that ruled that detainees must be treated in accordance with the law and
the Geneva conventions) cases. Yet Justice Department tactics in the
Omar case raise yet another question of the legitimacy of the Bush
administration’s approach to terrorism. There is evidence that Omar was
subjected to electroshock and severe physical beatings. Does the
administration want to turn Omar over to Iraqi authorities in order to
avoid the consequences of their treatment of him?
That the administration continues to disregard Supreme Court rulings is
deeply troubling, but that’s not the end of it, of course.
There is the case of New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart, convicted
of having provided “material support” to terrorists merely for having
made a press statement on behalf of her convicted terrorist client. This
statement put her in violation of special Bureau of Prison regulations
that apply only to prisoners convicted of terrorism (or are otherwise
viewed as a continuing danger) and their attorneys—which is very likely
unconstitutional but has not yet been tested in court. The regulations
place troubling restrictions on the attorney’s ability to represent her
client.
True to form, the government continues to argue that a 30-year sentence
for Stewart would serve as a "deterrent" to all those who would violate
Bureau of Prison regulations. Stewart’s conviction is unprecedented; no
attorney has ever been brought up on criminal charges for having
violated such administrative rules. Her defense committee states:
Lynne's case is among the worst examples of the terrible state of civil
liberties in the U.S. today. That a proud and courageous attorney, who
did nothing more than valiantly defend her client, could suffer so grave
an injustice is a sure sign that we are in for even more troubled times.
On September 25, Stewart will argue that her own trial was fundamentally
tainted by unlawful NSA spying on her strategy sessions with her
attorneys. Not a month after that—on October 15, close to the fifth
anniversary of the enactment of the now-infamous USA PATRIOT Act —
Stewart’s sentencing hearing takes place. Given the hundreds of letters
attesting to her long record of service to the justice system and
community, as well as her present battle with breast cancer, Stewart has
asked for a zero-term sentence with probation or home custody.
It’s hard to understand how prosecuting someone like Lynne Stewart
protects us from terrorism. Indeed, her conviction tolls the bell of
liberty for all by threatening the integrity of the entire defense bar
nationwide. Defense attorneys can no longer zealously represent their
clients where the innocent violation of a regulation can lead to 20
years in jail.
The last example of the disastrous approach of the Bush administration
to tackling the real threats of international terrorism is the case of
Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen who is guilty of nothing
more than having sent money to help Iraqis suffering under the sanctions
in place against Iraq prior to our 2003 invasion. The government argued
that the case had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism, but their
tactics belie this claim.
While no terrorism or 9/11-related charges were ever brought against
Dhafir, he was called a terrorist in press conferences by Attorney
General John Ashcroft and New York governor Pataki and his name was
included on a government list of terrorists cited by President Bush.
Further, the prosecutors themselves, in a seminar given at Syracuse
University last year, discussed the Dhafir case in the context of 9/11
terrorist cases, telling the audience the case was “under-prosecuted.”
Dhafir supporters point out the fundamental unfairness of the fact that
while the government asked the court to mandate that neither the defense
nor the prosecution be allowed to raise the issue of terrorism during
the trial, it demanded—and got—an increased sentence as a “national
security threat” for Dhafir’s violation of the sanctions.
The sanctions prohibited U.S. persons or organizations from sending
funds to Iraq without a license. But the trouble was that the legitimate
channels were corrupt and monies sent through those channels often did
not make it to the people most in need. Dhafir sent monies through his
own private channels to make sure they were received by those who most
needed them. There was never any question at trial that the monies were
used to fund terrorism or anything other than humanitarian assistance to
those in need.
Nonetheless, Dhafir was convicted in 2005 and is serving a 20-plus year
sentence. Katherine Hughes, who watched the entire 17-week trial as an
ACLU court-watcher, writes :
Dhafir is undoubtedly paying the price of breaking the genocidal
policy of U.S. sanctions against Iraq. However, the government
was unwilling to prosecute him for this without the attendant
obfuscation and cover provided by the laundry list of charges
that he faced. A clear message is being sent that humanitarian
acts like this will not be tolerated and will be punished
accordingly.
These three cases show a very disturbing trend in Bush administration
prosecutions: a war on ordinary people, people, in fact, attempting to
do good—not a war on terrorism.
source:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/25/web_of_terror.php
===
-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ajaklah teman dan saudara anda bergabung ke milis Media Dakwah.
Kirim email ke: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/media-dakwah/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/media-dakwah/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
