THE HANDSTAND

NOVEMBER 2002

October 2002
By Tariq A. Al-Maeena


As with so many hearts, grief enveloped mine on that fateful day of Sept. 11. Grief for the unwarranted loss of so many innocent lives. Human beings who through their abrupt death would be totally unaware of the pain and emptiness they would leave behind in the hearts of families and friends. But scarcely had my grief begun to process itself through, that lines were hastily drawn in the sand.

"You're with us or without us," bellowed George W. Bush, president of the United States of America. "This is a crusade" was the rhetoric that followed soon after. He went on to promise "infinite justice", language that somehow disrupted my moment of solace and sorrow. And then he started with the assault on Afghanistan.

More deaths followed, far greater in number and innocence then those who perished at the World Trade Center. Proponents of America's war on terrorism dismissed these innocent lives as 'collateral damage' in the words of none other than Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense. I really wonder now? Could anyone have rationally explained that term to any of the surviving members of these victims? And while the American media seized upon America's war on terrorism in cleverly marketable labels, it was slowly becoming apparent to many of us that this was more like "America's war OF terrorism."

And as aggressive policies were pursued abroad, in the USA itself there were constant reminders of daily threats that manifested themselves in the form of the anthrax affair, bridges being blown up, water supply being contaminated, and so on. In shades not unlike the era of the Cold War when the "Reds were everywhere" and underground bomb shelters were springing up in every neighborhood, this time the Al-Qaeda was everywhere, the Americans were told. The constant reminder drummed up so many times across television screens or front pages of printed media soon enabled the government to pass several bills in the formulation of the Homeland Security Act.
jeffrense@rense.com©2002
And soon after, we were not surprised to hear from junior assistants within the various secretariats of the US government that the Al-Qaeda network was active across the globe. Their singular aim? The promotion of terrorism and the destruction of America. And just as suddenly Iraq came into the picture. Iraq, according to Bush, stood out as the biggest danger to America and world peace. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Scuds that could barely find their targets during the Gulf War, now posed imminent danger to America's existence.

And thus began a campaign to drum up support for bombing Iraq. For blood thirsty minds actively promoting such a campaign, the thought of 1,000 pound bombs being dropped from B-52's 40,000 feet high in the sky and killing indiscriminately somehow does not seem to cross their minds. Either that or a conviction that the innocent people of Iraq deserve to die could be the only rational explanation. In defiance of worldwide reservations, Bush has begun to display a bizarre obsession with carrying on the destruction of Iraq. You were either with him or against him, remember?

Does anyone in the US government pause to ponder on whether the death of innocent adults and children of Iraq that would surely come with indiscriminate bombings would have purged the atrocities of Sept. 11? Or whether those who would lose lives, or limbs or loved family members had anything to do with Sept. 11? Or is it not more like another atrocity in the making, all in the name of homeland defense?

Or far worse, is it perhaps a portent of more evil to come, one contrived among select groups within the US government. North Korea has recently announced that they were attempting to develop a nuclear arsenal capable of delivering mass destruction. Would they be next on Bush's list of targets? Or is their topography too barren of oil reserves or strategic interests? The on-going diatribes of Bush on the threat to world peace are causing me to reflect. Just who possesses weapons of mass destruction and has shown a propensity to display his mighty arsenal?

I do not wish upon America any destruction or acts of violence...... I have long admired America, its peoples and its varied culture. I abhor violence and terrorism in any form. But Mr. Bush, I shall not cross over that line to your side or to your belligerent and politically distorted principles. While the sorrowful memories of Sept. 11 have long been overshadowed by acts of mayhem elsewhere around the globe, at least I shall go to sleep tonight with a clear conscience and a prayer to innocent victims everywhere.

- Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com

"Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution,"
by Senator Robert Byrd

On the floor of the United States Senate on Oct. 3, where Robert Byrd, the 84-year old West Virginia Democratic Senator and Constitutional scholar, delivered his own courageous and compassionate attack against the Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war.Senator Byrd delivered a statement as debate opened on Senate Joint Resolution 46 introduced into the Senate by Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)authorizing the President to use whatever force he deem necessary in Iraq or elsewhere.  

Byrd began: "The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, `All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident.' `Blind and improvident,' Mr. President. . . . Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the East, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident.   We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict."

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of Presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the Charter of the United Nations on its head."

Byrd quoted from a letter of then-Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who warned: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion. . . and you allow him to make war at pleasure. The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

Byrd challenged his fellow Members of Congress: "If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?"

"Think for a moment," Byrd asked the Senate, "of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching pre-emptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?. . . To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th-Century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war."

Byrd warned that the United States, under the Bush doctrine, would become a rogue state: "The principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium."

FOR ANYONE INTERESTED THE DETAILS OF THE EXTRAORDINARY CORRUPTION OF THE LEGAL CONSTITUTION OF THE USA CARRIED OUT BY GEORGE BUSH'S GOVERNMENT HERE FOLLOWS MATERIAL SENT BY ANOTHER AMERICAN CORRESPONDENT:

WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION
     By Rafe Husa

We have bombing and war yet there is no declaration of war.

A new Cabinet position (Homeland Security) has been created yet Congress passed neither enabling legislation nor has Congress appropriated funding of such, nor has the Cabinet Member been confirmed by Congress.

"NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW; AND A REGULAR STATEMENT AND ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF ALL PUBLIC MONEY SHALL BE PUBLISHED FROM TIME TO TIME." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SEC 9."

We have learned of selective suspension of Habeas Corpus yet no martial law or state of emergency has been declared.

"THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SEC 9.

Thousands of people have disappeared with not even their lawyers knowing their whereabouts.....is it protective custody or internment?

Congress has passed legislation under duress while it was being attacked by Anthrax mail. The attacks stopped immediately after Congress passed the "Patriot Act". The source of anthrax is openly admitted to coming from US defense laboratories. Congress did not even get a chance to read legislation that it has passed let alone debate it.

Congressman Ron Paul (RTX) Said "IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE BILL WASN'T PRINTED BEFORE THE VOTE - AT LEAST I COULDN'T GET IT. THEY PLAYED ALL KINDS OF GAMES, KEPT THE HOUSE IN SESSION ALL NIGHT, AND IT WAS A VERY COMPLICATED BILL. MAYBE A HANDFUL OF STAFFERS ACTUALLY READ IT, BUT THE BILL DEFINITELY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS BEFORE THE VOTE."

Violations

**The First Amendment right of free speech and association;

**The Fourth No searches without warrants, there does not now exist any category called "unreasonable searches and seizures" all searches are effectively legal, specifically secret searches;

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 4TH AMENDMENT.

**The Fifth prohibition against seizure of property without due process is gone;

"NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 5TH AMENDMENT.

**As with the war on drugs, property can be seized be executive order; people, even citizens, can be declared or defined terrorist by executive order;

**Organizations, including Citizens, can be declared terrorist or terrorist linked by executive order and have their assets seized and membership list confiscated.

**Secret courts disburse secret search warrants, people are charged with secret evidence which even their lawyers can not see and are unable to confront or challenge their accusers. All of the above was actually legal prior to 911 but will now enter mainstream.

IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 6TH AMENDMENT.

Open permission to kill has been given to intelligence agencies (Death squads organized, financed and run by the US Gov). Who will decide which of the enemies of the US GOV is beyond the pale and need to be exterminated, how long before this horror strikes home as US Government certainly has many opponents both presumed and real both at home and abroad?

One of the internees died with an alleged heart attack. When his body was autopsied in Pakistan he had several broken bones and possible internal injuries. Some internees have smuggled out letters which describe the pressure to denounce each other as a way to get out of isolation and or avoid immigration charges. This has occurred amid requests from the FBI to legalize torture.

The Founders saw the constitution as a limiting document on the Federal government. They were afraid of exactly the kind of all pervasive intrusive Federal power. They repeatedly clarified that the constitution was a restrictive document on the activities of the Federal Government. The Constitution, contrary to what the public schools teach, delegates specific powers to the Federal government and all others powers belong to either the states or the people.

The Bill of rights did not give the people any rights (our rights are God given). Consequently the bill of rights was a specific restriction on the activities of the Federal Government to avoid i.e. "Shall not be infringed (2nd Amend)". According to the debates at the ratification convention in Philadelphia they did not see a need for the bill of rights as they saw the constitution as a very clear limitation on the Federal Government. But many others who seem to have a portent of things to come pushed for the 10 amendments as a way to clearly delineate the limits of Federal Power. This is why Patrick Henry and others forced Madison to add the 9th and 10th Amendment.

"THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 9TH AMENDMENT.

"THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE." UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 10TH AMENDMENT.

The Founders had a visceral hatred and distrust of a standing army. They pushed a sense of the free American and armed militia as the Republic's defense. They disliked centralized power especially of a central military. They created in the revolutionist a healthy distrust of Imperial power and imperial armies. Now the image has become full circle.

"THE STRONGEST REASON FOR PEOPLE TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS, AS A LAST RESORT, TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT." Thomas Jefferson papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, ed. 1950)

"WHAT, SIR, IS THE USE IF A MILITIA? IT IS TO PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, THE BAND OF LIBERTY..... WHENEVER GOVERNMENTS MEAN TO INVADE THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE THEY ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE MILITIA, IN ORDER TO RAISE AN ARMY UPON THEIR RUINS." -Rep Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a signer of the Declaration of Independence-spoken during floor debate over the second amendment, I annals of congress at 750 (august 17, 1789]

I attended a Flag ceremony in city hall where I saw rows of flags and solemn faced people. The Flag poles all had eagles on them. If one were to add a small swastika in the eagle's claws this rally would be more like Germany in 1933 rather than America in 2001.

In summary I wish to raise your attention that while you focus on the war overseas, the war at home is just as important. On Sept 11 we have turned like the Roman Republic before us to Empire. Prior to 911 we had an incipient empire and a formal republic. After 911 the empire and empire builders come openly to the fore- front while the forms and walls of the republic are systematically destroyed. What will be left is a hollow shell of the former republic and its institutions. 

###Copyright (c) 2001, We Hold These Truths  All Rights Reserved

Publisher's Note: Author Rafe Husa is an American citizen who has made a careful and proud study of his heritage, which he clearly cherishes. He correctly recognizes, as did Abraham Lincoln, that the only real threat to American freedom can not come form any foreign power or combination of powers, but from within our body politic. cec