Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

January 9, 2003

America – overthrown – or at least in the process 

 By Ed Lewis

In forming an opinion on the case of Mr. Yasser Esam Hamdi being held as an enemy combatant, the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals, opinion written by the circuit's chief judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said: "The safeguards that all Americans have come to expect in criminal prosecutions do not translate neatly to the arena of armed conflict. In fact, if deference is not exercised with respect to military judgments in the field, it is difficult to see where deference would ever obtain."

This judge then went ahead to state, "The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the president extraordinarily broad authority as commander in chief and compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority."

In a report by Neil A. Lewis, Court Rules U.S. Can Hold Citizens as 'Enemy Combatants', Thursday 8 January 2003, it was stated by Mr. Lewis that:

“The court said that it would be improper for the judicial branch to launch an exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of Mr. Hamdi's capture as requested by his lawyers. To do so, the judges said, would be to haul officers back from across the globe and the conduct of the war should not be determined by litigation.

Frank W. Dunham Jr., a federal public defender in Virginia, who argued the case for Mr. Hamdi, had asserted that the defendant was entitled to challenge the allegations that he was an enemy soldier.

But the court said that because it was "undisputed that he was present in a zone of active combat operations, we are satisfied that the Constitution does not entitle him to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure there."   (My italics)

There is so much wrong with the judge’s reasoning that the extent of it is mind-boggling.  First of all, and most obvious, is that war was not declared and the US Government had taken military actions against a country that in fact had not taken any form of actions against the United States of America.

Second, the president hasn’t any special war powers allowed by the Constitution.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives authority only to Congress to “…make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”  Thus, the president hasn’t authority in this although he may make suggestions.

As far as making rules and controlling the military, Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 states that Congress, not the president, has authority.  It reads:

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”

True, the president is the Commander-in-Chief but Congress has the control.  A president can’t just declare this or that country needs attacked or that this man or woman is an enemy combatant, a term that could easily be used against any American who doesn’t agree with the government’s actions.

In its handling of Mr. Hamdi’s appeal, the judges rejected the idea that whether the war was at an end or not.  The court said that such questions were solely the province of the president and his military advisers.

Lordee, People, war was never declared.  Therefore, the actions in Afghanistan were acts of terrorism by the US Government.  Only Congress can declare war – the president hasn’t any authority to do so and anything to the contrary is pure fabrication by those intent on subverting the Constitution.  Since war was not declared, there could not be an end to it because it never existed.

The 4^th Appeals court regardless has shown its total lack of understanding of the Constitution when it stated such questions – whether the war was at an end or not – were solely the province of the president and his military advisers.  Besides, wartime does not give away the rights of the people.  The Geneva Convention and the United Nations charter in addition to the Constitution for the United States of America states this.  All this crap about wartime powers of presidents is just that – crap.

Then there is this by the “court” – a misnomer – the court isn’t the judge – it is only the room in which a hearing is held and a judge in a common law court of the people is only a moderator to assure rights of the plaintiff and the defendant are kept intact.  The jury rules on law in spirit and fact – thus, the reason government likes to keep juries in the dark about jury nullification.  Anyway ~ ~

 “The court said that it would be improper for the judicial branch to launch an exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of Mr. Hamdi's capture as requested by his lawyers. To do so, the judges said, would be to haul officers back from across the globe and the conduct of the war should not be determined by litigation.  (Reported by Mr. Lewis but my emphasis)

Folks, I thought sure this is America where one has the right to confront witnesses against him and/or those who make claims that one has damaged their person or property.  If the witness or witnesses don’t show up, then the case against the defendant must be dismissed.  But, I guess that must be another America I am thinking of.

The point is such opinions (we are not under the rule of any other than our Creator so “ruling” is a misnomer) are now being used to deny Americans their rights and to effectively do away with human rights, whether those of the American people or others. 

The president and his bunch of war mongering, blood, oil, and drug lusting – or do they just seem to be whacked out on drugs – advisers haven’t any authority whatsoever to remove or infringe upon the rights of people.  And, this includes when the country is in a bona fide war declared by Congress, not some self-serving and special interest serving official. 

Not even Congress has the power to infringe upon individual rights.  That is what the laws of God say, what the Constitution says, and what every constitutionally valid opinion of the Supreme Court has stated.

Thus, the court’s opinion – and that is all it is – is absolutely against the founding principles of this country and is therefore an act of treason against this country. 

Folks, you better wake up and try waking up your slumbering friends and family – “enemy combatant” is a term that will be used to describe any man or woman who disagrees with the actions of any level of government, but most especially the gang leader – the unlawful US Federal Government Corporation – in forcibly preventing the exercising of inherent rights.

You see, it is not the constitutional centralized government we are speaking of.  In it there are three branches of government, each given the duty to assure the others do not violate inherent rights. 

In effect, what has now been created – and is strengthened unlawfully by treasonous opinions – is a dictatorship with power given to one man to declare war, make laws, make life-threatening and taking decisions, and to decide who or what are its enemies.  And then to unconstitutionally use American people in the US Military, US Government armed agents, and foreign organizations such as the IRS to enforce the same.

That is not the America or the bona fide constitutional U.S. government (the non-corporation government) established by those who gave their lives and fortunes to create this union of countries (states) – it is the overthrow of this union of states into one state (nation) controlled by one man. 

Is this or is this not exactly what the Revolutionary War – a bona fide war from our forefathers’ perspective but an act of rebellion/terrorism from the perspective of England – was fought over?  Wasn’t it fought to free the people in the colonies from the tyranny of one man – King George III?

Aren’t we now just being paper-whipped into compliance with unconstitutional opinions and legislative acts treated as law?  And then after rights being cut to ribbons by the paper, we are exposed to armed aggressors who act out the government’s edicts against exercising our rights?

Consider this.  When an American goes to fight with rebels who are in favor with the US Government’s intents – such as al Qa’ida during the Russian/Afghanistan conflict – he is called a “freedom fighter”. 

But, when it is possible he is against the government’s intent, he is called an “enemy combatant” or “terrorist” whether he took up arms against the American people or not, whether any American or another is harmed and files a complaint, and whether there is any evidence whatsoever supporting the government’s contentions. 

Thus, we are left with a with a military/politico/industrial complex that decides everything whether constitutional or not.  It then uses as its mouthpiece one man – the president – a person who has no authority other than that specified in the Constitution.  And, no – Congress cannot delegate him authority as it would destroy checks-and-balances and, hence, make void the U.S. government.

Or it uses “the White House says”.   Heck, I didn’t even know buildings could speak.  Apparently, this is a phenomenon occurring regularly in the District of Corruption since the White House says, the courts say, or the Pentagon says.  I am waiting anxiously for the Washington Monument to rise up and ask the White House, the courts, and the Pentagon what  they have done to America.

And, then there are the people like that Fleischer guy and Rice woman, political appointees who wouldn’t have their jobs if they didn’t spout exactly what the controllers want.  You know, I couldn’t care less about what these two think since most of what they spout is as un-American – if not downright treasonous – as can be. 

Anyway, whether it is Bush reading his lines or sputtering around as he tries to speak for himself, or the White House speaking out, or Bush advisers, it is only the use the military or military-like forces – you know, the CIA, FBI, DEA, IRS, and other armed government personnel – and the use of local enforcers enforcing treasons against the people that allows this person the power of a monarch.

Do you really believe that is what our forefathers had in mind? 

Or, is American being overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship that could care less about human rights, the sovereignty of states and other nations around the world, and will continue to do unlawful acts just as long as the money from the control of oil/energy, defense spending, pharmaceuticals, and the trafficking of illegal drugs keeps flowing into their coffers?

I fear it is the latter – I hope and pray I am wrong.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN