Hi guys

I have been following stories like this, both in the US and Canada for months now. What pleases me about this story is that there is a large and influential group of people out there finally asking the same questions that many of us have been grappling with.

So what rights does citizenship confer? In this case US citizens are being hlep without accesss to lawyers, "incommunicado" in Navy brigs. No, I don't condone the actions they have been accused of, although I am careful to try and remember the important cornerstone of our legal system, which is the presumption of innocence. Not entirely applicable in martial courts, but that's where this whole "what rights does a citizen have?" question comes into play.

Besides the issus of these two so-called "enemy combatents" there is also the issue of citizens born outside the US being forced to register with local authorites. Does this mean that the only "real" citizen is the US born one?

I know there's alot of fear of terrorism, and I do belive it's a justified worry. But it's also important to balance fear with reason. Before 9-11 the worst terrorist attack in the US (Oklahoma) was carried out by a "real" US-born American. It was a digusting, reprehensible attack. The guilty party was found, tried and brought to justice within the confines of the legal system. The victims were vindicated. In the case of the victims of 9-11, how are they being vindicated by these actions? They aren't, and in fact, new victims are beign created everyday.

I love my collection of lawyer jokes - but I won't tell any tonight out of respect for these people who are waking up to challange what's happening, and fight for freedom for all.

Love,
Terri


U.S. lawyers group debates enemy combatant policy
Tuesday, February 4, 2003 Posted: 1:04 PM EST (1804 GMT)

from www.cnn.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The nation's largest legal group will vote next week on whether to take a stand against a Bush administration anti-terrorism measure barring U.S. citizens jailed as enemy combatants from talking to defense lawyers.

The American Bar Association's policy-making body, which meets next Monday and Tuesday in Seattle, is scheduled to consider a recommendation urging that certain constitutional rights be restored to such Americans. The session is part of the ABA's midyear meeting that officially begins February 5.

The administration's policy blocking U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants from talking to lawyers or having their cases reviewed by courts are among the most troubling anti-terrorism measures taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to legal experts.

"While we must have the means to prevent more attacks like those of September 11th, we must also insure that there are sufficient safeguards to protect the innocent and prevent possible abuses," the report to the American Bar Association states.

The vote comes as a Louisiana-born man, captured with Taliban forces in Afghanistan, expects to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of an federal appeals court ruling against him. A separate case involving a detained Brooklyn-born man is pending in Manhattan federal district court. Both men are being held incommunicado in Navy brigs without being formally charged.

The recommendation marks the second time that the association has been asked to take a stand against Bush administration anti-terrorism tactics after the Sept. 11 attacks. In August it voted to oppose the secret detention of foreign nationals following the devastating hijacked airliner strikes.

Access to lawyers, judicial review
The current proposal recommends that U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants have access to lawyers and judicial review of their status. It also urges Congress to establish clear standards and procedures for the their treatment.

Although the association has no power to enforce its views, its opinions can be influential.

"The ABA is the one organization that can speak most forcefully on these issues," said Neal Sonnett, a prominent Miami defense lawyer who heads the association's task force on the treatment of enemy combatants.

He said his group is not taking a position on the detention of enemy combatants, but it is recommending that they have certain basic rights so they can challenge their imprisonment.

"It (approval of the proposal) will stand as a strong statement of respect for due process and constitutional rights for U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants," he said.

Just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia ruled that the government can imprison a U.S. citizen captured overseas indefinitely when the military declares him an enemy combatant. The appeals court held that Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, has been properly jailed without a lawyer or certain other constitutional rights.

His lawyer plans to seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

In New York, a federal trial judge ruled in December that Jose Padilla, a Brooklyn-born man accused of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb," has the right to legal counsel. He also held that a federal court has the jurisdiction to decide if Padilla, who was arrested in May in Chicago when he got off a plane from Pakistan, was properly designated as an enemy combatant.

Prosecutors have asked the judge to reconsider his ruling.

"We recognize the government's responsibility to do everything possible to prevent another attack on our nation, but we also worry that the methods employed in the Hamdi and Padilla cases risk the use of excessive government power and threaten the checks and balances necessary in our federal system," the report to the American Bar Association states.

"How we deal with citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States who are suspected of terrorist activity will say much about us as a society committed to the rule of law."

I have the same concerns, and the same gratitude that influential body is is at least bringing the issue to public awareness, which if nothing else signals its credibility as a genuine concern.

What folks have been blinded to by this hue and cry over national security is that throughout history EVERY totalitarian and dictatorial government that has ever siezed power has ALWAYS used "national security" as the excuse for suspending civil liberties and the rule of law, and arrogating "secret police" powers to the military and executive. If people cannot see the same thing happening here, then frankly we have blinders on.

Love,
Greg

Hi Terri

After reading your post and the news article one question came to my mind; what are the laws regarding treason? Does an American citizen charged with treason have the same rights to due process of law and the same Constitutional rights that the rest of us do? Ok, more than one question came to my mind. I did a little research this morning on the subject.

The operable word here is "citizen" . According to the Immigration and Nationality Act Ammendments of 1986 they clearly do not have the same rights that the rest of us do. Because they are no longer citizens of the United States. They surrendered and abandoned their citizenship of this country and all the rights that went with it when they participated with a foreign group to wage what amounts to an act of war against the United States. It can't be seen as anything but an act of war when they not only attacked the World Trade Center taking thousands of innocent lives, but also attacked the Pentagon killing hundreds of people.

For American citizens, irregardless of rather they were born in this country or are naturalized citizens, to participate in such acts against their own country with a foreign group is an act of treason. Thereby surrendering their birth rights. According to the Constitution of the U.S., the government first has to prove treason and in order to do that all the government needs is either two witnesses or a confession in open court. Once treason is proven the citizenship of these two men no longer exists. They are literally, men without a country.

The difference between the acts of Sept. 11, 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing is that, while the bombing in Okla. City was, as you stated, " disgusting and reprehensible ", it was not treason. The bombing in Okla. City was carried out by one of our own "homegrown" brand of fanatics and not in corroboration with a foreign group of fanatics. Both acts were clearly premeditated, planned for years, and executed taking thousands of innocent lives. However,the Okla. City bombing, while it was a cold blooded act of premeditated murder, it was not an act of treason. Even if the malitia aided in the Okla. City bombing, that group consists of a bunch of very disturbed American citizens, not a foreign group who consider themselves enemies of the United States and waged their Jihaad on Sept. 11, 2001. Timothy McVee did not forfeit his citizenship when he bombed that building in Okla. City taking all those innocent lives. He may have forfeited his humanity, but he still remained a citizen of the United States with right to due process of law including legal representation. These two American citzens clearly conducted an act of treason and thereby forfeited their citizenship and their right to due process of law. As you stated the same rights are "not applicable in martial courts" which is where they will be tried. Also, under the Constitution the government of the U.S. has the right to not only try these men for treason, but determine the sentence as well.

I am not out for revenge for Sept.11, 2001. I do not believe in revenge. The only purpose it serves is to make matters worse. I believe in forgiveness and compassion. I do have compassion for these two men, but my compassion and what I feel for them is directed to their loss and what they so carelessly threw away. They were priviledged and blessed as we all are who were born in this country where we do have freedom and rights, a country where they could live in peace with their fellow man, become educated and pursue their own dreams and freely practice their religious beliefs. These men had every advantage that we all are so very fortunate to have in a world where others have so little. Yet they threw it all away to follow a warped ideology and to try and control the thoughts, beliefs, and human rights of others. It was their choice. And they did not seem to have any regard for the lives or the rights of all those innocent people they murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. Some of those innocent victims were mere babies whose futures they took away that day.

Connie ( moonflower )

Excerpt from the Constitution of The United States:

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

6. IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1986

Since the Supreme Court spoke some time ago on the requirements for loss of citizenship, n258 one would have expected some congressional action on the expatriation statute. That time finally arrived when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1986. n259

Among the provisions affected was the section dealing with loss of citizenship. The statute now makes explicit what the Supreme Court has said in Afroyim and Terrazas. A citizen must act voluntarily and intentionally in giving up his citizenship. The statute now states that a person shall lose his nationality by "voluntarily performing any of the [statutory] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." n260

n3. Expatriation does not involve any judicial process but results from a citizen's voluntary act in surrendering or abandoning his citizenship. It is relevant to citizens who acquire citizenship by birth or naturalization. A citizen automatically loses his citizenship when he performs any of the acts prescribed by the INA. Immigration and Naturalization Act, § 349, 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). The citizen's acts will normally come to light when the citizen applies for a passport or an American consul finds out by some other means. The consul then sends a questionnaire to the citizen and prepares a certificate of loss of nationality on the basis of information obtained. The consul sends the certificate to the United States Department of State together with supporting documents and his recommendations. The Department of State makes the final determination. Immigration and Naturalization Act


Connie ( moonflower )

Moonflower I am as strongly against treason as you are, and I'm certainly not one to suggest that traitors should be "coddled," any more than rapists or murderers should. Whether their rights as citizens should be revoked is another question, and I can see both sides of that issue.

However, the question here is NOT whether traitors deserve to have their citizenship rights revoked - or even whether these two particular individuals are or are not traitors - but rather, does the chief executive or whoever he appoints have the right to determine whether an individual IS as traitor or not on his sole say-so, without any due process, judicial oversight, right to self-defense or appeal ... or any of the other cornerstones of our legal system designed to safeguard the liberty of all.

This is what the administration is asserting: that if they SAY someone is a traitor - without any trial or presentation of evidence required, and no ability of any court in the land to oversee or question that decision. Therefore the person who is NAMED as a traitor can be held indefinitely with no charges being filed, no right of access to family or lawyers, and with the entire proceedings behind a cloak of complete secrecy. If these provisions are upheld, it means that the president or his appointee(s) can wisk away anyone they choose and do anything with them they please, without any requirement to answer to ANYONE - not the courts, not even congress - simply by SAYING that the person is an enemy combatant. That is WAY too much power for a president - or any human being - to have, and it is clearly unconstitutional.

The Constitutional provisions that you quoted say "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." This is clearly referring to proving in court that an individual is guilty of treason, and convicting him or her of that crime. The constitution is very clear that until a person is CONVICTED of a crime, he or she is presumed innocent and is entitled to all civil rights (and certainly to the right to defend himself and prove that he is not a traitor.) What the current controversy is about is giving the executive branch of government the power to act as judge and jury in determining that an "innocent until proven guilty" citizen IS guilty ... without even being required to share their reasoning with anyone.

It could happen to me, because some zealous bureaucrat believes that the sentiments I am expressing right this moment are "treasonous" - and if so asserted, there is nothing you or I or anyone else could do about it. No evidence required, no reasoning, no trial, no defense, no appeal ... I'd just be gone. It could happen to you. It could happen to any of us if this power stands.

This is flat-out tyrannical, dictatorial power. This is the kind of power that the Gestapo and the KGB had, that all Americans found so loathesome and swore that it could NEVER happen here. Well, it's happening. Are we going to let it?

Love,
Greg

Hey Connie -

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and well-researched reply. I see clearly where you are coming from regarding treason, and yes, I agree treason against your country does negate your right to claim citizenship privileges. However, there are a couple things which I think you misinterpreted from my post.

First of all, the two men that are being held are (to the best of my knowledge) not being charged with committing acts of terrorism on 9-11. They are being held because they were picked up in a global sweep for people with links to Al-Quieda. The majority of these people are being held in prision camps in Afganistan and Guntanimo Bay. I have concerns about their civil rights too (so does Amnesty International!) but I feel it is fair that these men are called POWs, and treated as such.

However, the two men in question, Hamdi and Padilla, are different from the ordinary POWs in that they are (were?) American citizens. And yes, they do seem to have been involved in terrorist activties. They do seem to fit the description of "emermy combatents" and so perhapes, their treatment is justified and perhapes they do not have the same rights as other US citizens suspected of murder or attempted murder (which would essentially be the civil charges that would be laid against them if lawyers were pushing for a conviction in an ordinary court.) HOWEVER - it is the arbitrary way in which these men were stripped of their civil rights that worries me. A lawyer friend of mine who has followed these stories carefully says that on the balance of the information availble these men couldn't even be charged in an ordinary proceeding, such is the circumstancial nature of the evidence against them. I am concerned because the important adage of "Inncocent until proven guilty" is just totally thrown out the window in these cases. The presumption is one of guilt, the onus is on the men to prove their innocence, and they must do this with no access to council. Their rights were stripped over the same circumstanial evidence, by one person's executive decision. I just don't think that's how things should be done in North America. To use plain old playground-speak - Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the actual 9-11 terrorists - I hope I didn't convey the idea that I think they deserved any special consdieration. They were not Americans and never were. They were members of an army attacking a country. Assuming any survived the attack, I would expect 100% to see them treated the way any attacking solider would be treated while waging war on your country. But Hamdi and Padilla were not members of the 9-11 terrorist cell. Maybe in time we would discover all kinds of links, all kinds of proof that demonstates these men were conclusively linked to 9-11 and / or planning serious future attacks on America. But we won't ever see that proof, because of the secrecy of this whole enemy combantent proces. That makes me uncomfortable.

As for the forgien-born US citizens being forced to register...since when did your place of birth single you out for discrimination in a free country like the US? (or Canada - cause I'm sure something similar is on the books here too). Because that's what it is, discrimation, pure and simple. When people are put on a list that is based on their country of orgin and then asked to register with local authorities, and can be jailed when they show up to register for days with no access to council, well to me that's shocking to be happening in a first world country. Countries like Canada and the US were founded by immigrants and the sucess of our nations has everything to do with attracting the willing and hard-working from all over the world and presenting them with the opportunity to live in freedom, persuing the same dream that brought our grandparents or great-grandparents over too. I am ashamed when I hear the stories of people born in India, or Pakistan, or Iran since 9-11. The Al-Quidea mindset is not endemic to these countries, and the presumption that people can lose their hard-earned citizenship rights because they were born in the same country as Bin Laden - doesn't that ring alarm bells for you? Don't you worry that one day, if we let these questions go unanswered, and let the governement continue to run rough-shod over our rghts that we will all suffer in the same way? Greg's example of him going missing one day for his "treasonous" viewpoints may seem far-fetched today - but I think it's not the exaggeration we wish it were.

Anyway - like I said, I do repsect your viewpoint, and thank you for sharing it - but I still hold my concerns, and am glad that the ABA is coming on board too.

Love,
Terri

Hi Greg

In rereading the article that Terri presented in her post a couple of things in that article struck me as questionable. The first section I have pasted here states that Yaser Esam Hamdi had been "properly jailed without a lawyer or other constitutional rights." It then goes on to state that "his lawyer" plans to seek a U.S. Supreme Court review. That strikes me as a contradiction. Does this guy have a lawyer or not? On the one hand the article states that he was jailed without a lawyer then goes on in the very next sentence to say that his lawyer is going to the U.S. Supreme Court for a review.

Just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia ruled that the government can imprison a U.S. citizen captured overseas indefinitely when the military declares him an enemy combatant. The appeals court held that Louisiana-born Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001, has been properly jailed without a lawyer or certain other constitutional rights.

His lawyer plans to seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

In the next section of that article that I pasted here it strikes me that even the legal profession is in disagreement here as to rather or not Jose Padilla should have right to legal counsel and be declared an enemy combatant. The prosecutor is asking that the judge reconsider his ruling.

In New York, a federal trial judge ruled in December that Jose Padilla, a Brooklyn-born man accused of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb," has the right to legal counsel. He also held that a federal court has the jurisdiction to decide if Padilla, who was arrested in May in Chicago when he got off a plane from Pakistan, was properly designated as an enemy combatant.

Prosecutors have asked the judge to reconsider his ruling.

I am not implying that these men should not have a trial to determine rather or not they performed acts of treason against the United States. In fact, they will have a trial in the martial courts. They will also have a defense attorney. The government has stated this. Anyone who has ever had to go to trial in this country or even go to court for a traffic violation knows that the court system is slow. We all know how slow the justice system is. That these men are being held for long periods of time does not surprise me. It further does not surprise me that the system has been so slow regarding the non-nationlist in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I know that Amnesty International is looking into this matter, including the issues regarding Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla.

That these people were designated by the government as being enemy combatants is one matter, that the govenment can indiscrimnately point a finger at any U.S. citizen and say they are enemy combatants is another matter completely. That our government designated these people as enemy combatants without any reason has not been proven. Since their cases have not yet gone to trial the government is not going to tell the media the evidence they have against them. So we don't have all the facts as yet and won't until it goes to trial. Our government has stated that the trials will be public. Without all the facts we cannot say that what the government is doing is unconstitutional. The Constitution is like the Bible. Often misintrepreted and often misquoted.

I by no means am a George W. Bush fan. I did not vote for him and don't particularly like a lot of his policies. However, I HAVE to have SOME faith, SOME trust in the government of the United States. President Bush, almost immediately after being appointed to the office of President of the United States, was faced with something that no other President in the history of this country has had to deal with. He has no precedent which he can follow in this matter. The United States has never been attacked by a foreign enemy on it's own shores before Sept.11, 2001. President Bush is having to chart the waters and he is bound to make a few mistakes in doing that. I just feel that we as Americans should give the poor guy some slack before we start beating him over the head with the Constitution. There are going to be new laws established along the way as those waters are charted that set the precedents for future Presidents to follow.

I may not be politically correct in my thinking but at this time, until I have further evidence that convinces me to the contrary, that is how I see the matter. At this time I have no evidence that convinces me that our government is doing anything unconstitutional. I have no evidence that shows me that these men are being treated inhumanely. I have no evidence that convinces me that our government is, sometime in the future, going to start indiscriminately pointing their finger at all Americans and charging them without evidence of being enemy combatants. I have no evidence that tells me that our government does not have knowledge or evidence on these two men in order to detain them in a Navy brig simply because they are not divulging that evidence to the press before the trials.

Connie ( moonflower )

Hi again Connie -

Must have crossed posts with you....

My assumption (and it's not based on anything other than how I interpreted the article) about Hamdi's lawyer is that Hamdi does not have regular access to the lawyer, but perhapes the lawyer is making the challange to the Suprmem Court out of his own conscience, or was retained by Hamdi's family acting on his behalf? I'll look into somemore though, because it is an inconsistancy. I got the article from CNN, which is not my favourite news source - it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.

I think it's important to have faith in your country, and trust in your government. Alot of our basic assumptions about the world hinge on the fact that we have trust in the people around us.

I don't have time to do any serious research from lots of sources, but I did have these Amnesty press releases in my files. Bear in mind they are obviosuly biased, but on the whole Amnesty is respected as being good fact finders and fair in their assessments. Certainly we listen to them when they talk about problems in Tibet, or Afganistan, so who's to say they are so off the mark here?

Love,
Terri

PS - You can find the orginal press releases at www.amnesty.org



USA: Detainees from Afghan conflict should be released or tried November 2002

All those detained in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan -- whether detained in Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere -- should be promptly released unless they are to be prosecuted for a recognizably criminal offence, Amnesty International said today.

The organization added that, should any of them be prosecuted, they should be given access to a lawyer and receive a fair trial.

"It is time to end the unacceptable legal limbo in which these prisoners are kept -- a condition in which they are denied 'prisoner of war' status while at the same time are not allowed to enjoy the rights recognised to criminal suspects under US law," Amnesty International said.

"In accordance with international humanitarian law, those among these detainees who were entitled to be considered prisoners of war should be repatriated if they can return to their countries of origin safely," the organization explained. "If safe return is not possible, they should be sent to countries where they will not face serious human rights abuses."

All other detainees should be released without delay unless they are also to be tried in accordance with international human rights standards. The military commissions proposed in an order signed by President Bush last November to try non-US nationals suspected of terrorism lack clear independence from the executive and allow no right of appeal to an independent and impartial court. Trial in these courts would not meet international fair trial standards.

Amnesty International also reiterated its concern about conditions in the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, where detainees are allegedly confined for 24 hours a day to small cells in sweltering heat. Some of the conditions reported -- including exercise limited to 15 minutes twice a week -- are in direct violation of international minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners.

The situation is made worse by detainees' limited contact with the outside world and the uncertainty of their futures. Amnesty International believes that such conditions may cause severe physical and psychological damage, particularly when imposed long-term or indefinitely. In recent months, a series of attempted suicides have been reported.

Amnesty International has called on the US government to respect the basic rights of all those in US custody. These include the right to humane treatment; the right to be informed of the reasons for the detention and to be able to challenge the lawfulness of the detention; the presumption of innocence; prompt access to and assistance of a lawyer and to be able to communicate with family and friends.

These rights should extend to more recently captured suspects held for interrogation at US bases in Afghanistan as well as to US citizens Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla held without charge in incommunicado military detention in the USA. Yaser Hamdi was captured during the military conflict in Afghanistan and has been held since April in a naval brig in Virginia; Jose Padilla, was arrested at Chicago airport on a suspected terrorism charge and transferred to military custody in South Carolina last June. Both are denied access to their attorneys, although, unlike non-US nationals held in military custody outside the USA, their circumstances are currently under review by US courts.

Amnesty International is also concerned by reports that suspected members of al-Qa'ida arrested by US officials in Afghanistan or elsewhere have been transported for questioning to third countries where they might be at risk of human rights violations. These countries include Egypt, where suspected members of Islamic opposition groups are frequently tortured during incommunicado detention.

"No-one should be sent to another country to be interrogated if there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," Amnesty International said.

Background
More than 600 detainees from 42 countries are currently held in the US military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Most were captured during the armed conflict in Afghanistan and have been held for more than eight months. However, at least six detainees -- including four Algerians from Bosnia and possibly many others -- were arrested outside Afghanistan.

The four detainees released on 26 October were a Pakistani man and three Afghans, whom the US authorities said did not pose a security threat. One of the Afghan prisoners, Jan Muhammed, said he did not receive any letter from his family until three days before his release. Reports suggest that many of those held in Guantánamo Bay were low-level foot soldiers fighting for, or conscripted into, Taleban forces during the Afghanistan armed conflict. There are also indications that others may have been simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Another 30 detainees were transferred to Guantánamo Bay on 28 October 2002, bringing the population of the detention centre to around 625, according to US officials.

Amnesty International's requests for access to the detention facility have so far been ignored by the US government.


USA: one year on - the legal limbo of the Guantánamo detainees continues - Jan 10, 2003

The US government must end the legal black hole into which it has thrown hundreds of detainees in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, Amnesty International said today, the first anniversary of the first prisoner transfers from Afghanistan to the US Naval Base. There are currently more than 600 detainees of around 40 nationalities held in Guantánamo.
"This legal limbo is a continuing violation of human rights standards which the international community must not ignore", Amnesty International said.
"No access to the courts, lawyers or relatives; the prospect of indefinite detention in small cells for up to 24 hours a day; the possibility of trials by executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences and no right of appeal: is this how the USA defends human rights and the rule of law?", Amnesty International asked, recalling the Secretary of State's promise last year that the USA would 'not relax our commitment to advancing the cause of human rights'.
Amnesty International has repeatedly written to the US authorities calling for the detainees to be treated in accordance with international law and standards, and has also requested access to the Guantánamo facility. It has received no response.
Recent reports have suggested that up to 10 per cent of the detainees were transferred to Guantánamo despite having already been deemed to have been of no intelligence value during interrogations in Afghanistan. Ten months ago, a deputy commander at the base was reported to have said that some of the detainees appeared to be 'victims of circumstance'.
"The importance of allowing these detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in a court of law cannot be overstated", Amnesty International continued. "That is a fundamental human right, and one that protects against arbitrary arrest and detention".
Among the early transferees were six Algerian nationals seized by US officials in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their case was described by a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as one of 'extrajudicial removal from sovereign territory'.
Amnesty International is currently investigating reports that two men, of Iraqi and Jordanian nationality, arrested and held incommunicado in Gambia in November 2002 on suspicion of having links to al-Qa'ida, have secretly been transferred to Guantánamo Bay.
"In his State of the Union Address last year, President Bush said that the USA will lead by defending justice everywhere", Amnesty International recalled. "It is time his government looked to its actions with regard to the Guantánamo detainees."
Amnesty International has called for the voluntary repatriation of all those detained as combatants during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan, as required under the Geneva Conventions, unless they are to be charged with criminal offences or would face serious human rights abuses if returned to their country. Any other of the Guantánamo detainees should be charged with recognizably criminal offences and tried within a reasonable time, or released, but not returned to any country where they would be at risk of torture, execution or other serious human rights abuses.

Hi Connie

You and I have completely different experiences and "evidence" to bring to bear on these issues, so it's only natural that we have different viewpoints.

As for trusting Bush, a friend I am helping in a minor way was sexually used and abused by GW's father (with GW's full awareness and sometimes presence) numerous times, along with a number of other highly CIA-connected national politicians, in connection with the CIA's MK-ultra mind control program. This is a very decent human being who was literally sold into slavery to the CIA (and the extensive "gang" surrounding the CIA), where she was raped, brutalized and tortured with electroshock and subjected to countless other traumas in order to make and keep her a mind-controlled slave. Knowing this (among many other shocking facts about this group of people), I cannot possibly have any belief in the decency or honor of anyone who was a willing and knowledgeable collaborator in such brutally inhuman criminal behavior ... and sadly this includes our President. I absolutely do not believe that this man has ANY honest intentions toward this country. I believe that he is a fully knowledgeable member of a large criminal "clique" of powerful people in the intelligence community and various other governmental positions whose intention is to establish a worldwide totalitarian government. That is my honest belief.

However, not knowing the same folks I know or having had the same experiences and other sources of information as I have, I certainly would not expect you to agree with that assessment. But that is not the cause of concern I am addressing here. That issue is that the administration is asserting its position that the president and his designated military and administrative representatives, has the power to indefinitely detain incommunicado and in secrecy anyone that they DECLARE to be a military combatant, and THAT is what the bar association is worried about.

This position is currently being tested in the courts, and as reported "Just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia ruled that the government can imprison a U.S. citizen captured overseas indefinitely when the military declares him an enemy combatant," with no need for further evidence or judicial oversight. The position is also being tested in courts in other rulings with regard to citizens arrested WITHIN the US and declared enemy combatants. If these various court cases and appeals end up validating the administration's position, it will give the president the arbitrary secret police POWER that I and the ABA are concerned about. Even if you believe that the current administration would never abuse such power, you can't possibly know who the next president will be or whether HE can be trusted not to use such tyrannical power in a coercive way. Even if I thought GW was the most honest and well-intentioned person on Earth I would strenuously oppose giving him or any president such power ... because We the People must never be placed in a position where our freedom is dependent on the good will and honesty of whoever happens to be in power!

It's not about these particular cases ... it's not about GW's intentions and integrity or lack thereof ... it's about NOT giving ANYONE the right to arbitrarily suspend our constitutional rights in secret and answerable to no one.

As the saying goes, "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom," and the Bar Association is expressing that vigilance now. Regardless of our opinions about this administration, or the war on Iraq, or either side of any political issue, if we are not vigilant enough to assure that we do not hand over absolute power to any group or individual, no matter HOW reasonable they seem, then we will not have paid that price, and we will assuredly lose our freedom.

That's how I see it, Connie. I do understand and respect where you are coming from.

Love,
Greg

Hi Terri

Thank you for the articles from Amnesty International. I have read that article but it is good to have my boomer memory refreshed on all it contained. I very much respect the work that Amnesty International does, I have been a supporter of the orginization for years, both supporting the work they do and in monetary donations.

I respect both yours and Gregs viewpoints on this matter as well and you both make some very valid points. I understand your concerns and in fact, if I had knowledge that our government were treating anyone inhumanely or if I felt they were denying anyone their Constitutional rights I would be one of the first to protest that. I am being patient ( that is not a normal Taurean trait either ) and waiting for the trials of these men and for the evidence the government has against them before I make any concrete decisions regarding any violations of their constitutional rights.

I have not addressed the other issue you mentioned regarding requiring U.S. citizens to register simply because they are Arabic by nationality. The reason I did not address that issue is because I need to find out more about it and also think it through before I form an opinion on it. We have a very large Arabic population in the Detroit metro area. Some of those people live very close to me. I have met some very nice Arabic people who are outstanding citizens and I have met some who are not. I do know that during World War ll German and Japanese citizens were treated differently as well and our government did violate the rights of it's Japanese citizens. My husband's father was born in this country of German immigrant parents and our last name is Reich. My father-in-law was detained during World War 11 at Selfridge Air Force base near us. He spent his time shooting pool with the National Guardsmen. I do know that in times of war the laws are changed regarding rights. I have read that certain groups are saying that President Bush does not have the right to detain these two men or the non-nationalists at Guantanama Bay since there has been no declared war. Perhaps not on our part, but it seems to me that Osama Bin Laden's group declared war on the United States. Also, Viet Nam was never a declared war and we fought there for, what was it?, twelve years or more? I am not in favor of war period. However there are some just and some unjust wars. Would anyone say that stopping a madman like Hitler or that World War ll was an unjust war? If we had not fought that war where would the world be today?

You asked me does it not bother me or am I not concerned with the future and what may happen concerning our rights. I am very concerned with the future. I have 4 grand daughters growing up in this world. I am very concerned and afraid of what may happen in their future if fanatical groups like Al Quida (know that is mispelled) or someone like Saddam Hussien has possession of nuclear weapons. We have seen what these people are capable of doing. They are people who have no regard for human life, not even their own, they are people who are not concerned at all with human rights, and they are quite capable of blowing this planet up. Then none of us are going to be here to debate what is constitutional or what isn't constitutional. And my grand daughters will have no future and no chance of making this a better world. Now that does keep me awake at night.

I do want you and Greg to know that while we may not agree at times, I do respect your viewpoints and I take away what truth I find in what both of you have said here.

Connie

Thanks Connie.

I suspect that if any of us shared the others' perceptions and premises, we'd probably be in substantial agreement about all these issues ... because in fact we are all advocates of freedom and human rights and all want to see a just and humane world for our children (and ourselves! ) That we have different ideas about the best way to get from here to there is not surprising ... but probably important in the long run, so I think that any dialog that helps us to understand the different viewpoints more deeply is a good thing.

BTW, if anyone is interested in learning more about my friend who was a victim of the CIA mind-control program, I am hosting and maintaining her website to help get this information out, because I think it's important that folks know the truth about the CIA and these terribly inhumane and frankly criminal programs ... the website is here: www.trance-formation.com.

Love,
Greg

Hello Greg, Terri, and Moonflower,
Terri, you brought up a good point about citizenship. Are we a citizen of the US because we have a SSN. This number is ours for the rest of our lives. I love the US but I love all of the Earth too. However, I'm very concerned when a government becomes covert to control events and people for their own agenda. They cause certain events to happen-Oklahoma bombing, Twin Towers etc.. then use a scapegoat to pin the blame on. Then use God, Country and/or family to rally the masses behind them. Greg brought up a good point about our CIA. Old man Bush was the man runnig the CIA years ago. Many people who worked for the CIA, DEA etc.. are coming forward to expose the lies from these agencies. As for Pr. Bush having to face situations that no other president has faced- Remember, to believe something you have to be careful because the word "lie" is contained in the word believe. I distrust all governments because if you research any government in the past- During our time or Greek and Romans- the hunger for power and control has been a running theme. But in order to control the masses you have to control the information that the citizens obtain. Knowledge is power and governments try to control that knowledge because the truth can be stranger than fiction. The link that Greg gave will explain how the truth is stranger than fiction. Well that's my two cents worth of input.

Woody

Hi Again Guys

Wow rereading all this I thought we got into a heavy debate here on this issue I think that is very healthy though. It's good to debate the issues, to think and consider each other's viewpoints. As you said Greg, our viewpoints are largely formed by our life experience and our perception of the world around us.

I would like to clarify one thing, least I be labeled a conservative. Heaven forbid! Truth is I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I don't like labels. I abhor labling other people. I find that while we may be liberal in one area, we can be very conservative in another area. Also I do not believe everything I hear or read. I don't jump to conclusions but give things a lot of thought and consideration before forming an opinion one way or the other. So for that reason I do not blindly follow the government, nor do I place my trust in one man or totally trust the government. I would have to have gone through my life with a blindfold on to completely trust our government or any government. The history of this country and the world shows me it is very unwise to do that. I do not place my trust in man at all, but rather that trust is completely placed in God, a higher power or whatever any of us call it. Only a fool would place their trust in mankind completely because mankind is capable of deception. Our world, our lives and everything is in God hands and rather we know it or not, it is he who is in control of everything.

All through history if you have noticed there have been certain individuals who have been placed in charge, rather by fate or whatever, during times of crisis or turning points in our world. That GW was elected President ( and I still question the outcome of that election and how he attained the office ) at this particular time in history makes me real nervous. Frankly I never liked his father and am not that crazy about him. So I trust in God and pray that the right decisions are made. I pray that God guide our government. I do love my country just as you guys do. But I know my country and the men governing it have done some terrible things in the past. I am part, and mostly Native American. I am not even going to go into what our government did to the Native Americans and how they were treated. Except to say that we have practiced genocide in this country's history. For just that reason alone I have no blind allegiance or total trust in the government. However, I also know that there are some very good men in our government and it is not up to me to judge the motives of any man. Only God can see our motives and intentions. We can't see each others. I can judge a man's character by his actions and words but I cannot see into his soul and judge his motives and intentions.

We spoke of one man having too much power, and I agree with you, Greg that it is never good to place too much power in one man's hands. That is why we have a Congress, a house and all that forms our government. It kind of makes for a checks and balance system. The Constitution provided for that so that the power is not strictly in one man's hands. There is also the power of the people. Some say we lost the Viet Nam war. We may have lost the battle but it was a victory for democracy; an example to all the world of the voice the American people have to make changes. So we should speak out on the issues because nothing is worse than apathy. I think there is far too much of that in our world today.

About the woman you spoke of , Greg. I have heard about that but it was so long ago that I have forgotten all the details. Thank you for the site. I will check that out later today when I have more time. If that is true I feel very badly for the woman. No one should indure such inhumane treatment. It is just plain evil to treat another human being that way. If former President Bush and GW were involved with that as you stated, it should be pursued, proven and they should be punished for it. I don't mean to make light of her ordeal at all, but if it turns out to be true, it sure makes Clinton's escapades in office look like a booger in comparison. I think that it is wonderful that you are helping this woman, Greg and giving her the support and love she needs.

Just one more note, because I know I can be long winded, what we have been debating here about rights and all made me think of couple of things. Last night as I lay in bed I was reminded of a saying about rights, I can't quote it verbatim but it's " See my nose? Where that begins, your rights end." Another thing I thought about was a whole other debate, what ever happened to the common good? Laws used to be made for the common good of the people, not for individuals. Now it all individual rights, not the rights of the people as a whole. So I guess what I think of the individual rights situation we find our world in today is, "See my nose....."

Love you,
Connie the moon flow-er

Woody

I don't know you but I trust you mean well. I merely stated a FACT about Pr. Bush having to face something no other president before him has had to face. Do you know of any other president who had to deal with The United States being attacked on our own shores? Where is the lie in that statement? Is the word "lie" more in my beliefs than yours?Sometimes truth *is* stranger than fiction, and then again, sometimes fiction gets mixed up with truth.
Oops, sorry. There goes that Taurus temper.

Connie

Connie, thanks for your thoughts and good wishes for Cathy. In fact, she has been seeking justice through the court system, for the past 15 years, with the help of her rescuer Mark Phillips, even filing criminal charges against two former presidents and the CIA and compiling massive documented evidence. In every case, however she has been stymied by the National Security Act of 1947, which effectively gives the CIA immunity from prosecution under the guise of national security. In dismissing her latest case, the presiding judge said in open court and on the record, "the laws do not apply in this case for reasons of national security."

In other words, those she accuses have never denied the charges ... they don't have to. They simply say "this matter relates to a secret project involving national security, therefore we invoke the National Security Act and will not appear in court or answer the charges." And that's that.

But she's not giving up ... with wide enough exposure and a fierce enough public outcry, even the CIA's "immunity" can be pierced, as it was in the Iran Contra affair. That's why her focus now is spreading awareness of these criminal activites as widely as possible.

Love,
Greg]

Hi Woody,

You said in your post above: "I distrust all governments . . ." . Surely there is no perfect government since a government is made up of people and the last I heard, humans are not infallible . But I am curious, and interested if you can suggest an alternative to government.

By the way, ever read Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954)? It is actually a good story, which was required reading in my high school.

Basically, it is about a group of English school boys that get marooned on an island. There was no government there, just some anarchy and savagery. Here is a link: Lord of the Flies.


Sabra

Hi Sabra,

You made a very good point when you stated that governments are made up of people and people are not infallible. Not only governments but any intstiution, even the Church as we are seeing way too often. There are good, well intentioned men and women in our government and there are also corrupt ones. Sometimes even the presidents we have had who are not popular with the people, not especially good men, have done some good things for our country. President Lyndon B. Johnson was not popular with the people because of his insistance on continuing the Viet Nam war, yet he was able to get more bills passed by the Senate than any other president in history. He established many organizations to help the poor and underpriviledged people in this country. And he got more laws passed to help the underpriviledged. He established VISTA ( Volunteers In Service Of America ) as a branch of the Peace Corps. It is now called Americorps VISTA and is the domestic Peace Corps with volunteers of all ages, nationalities and backgrounds serving their communities and our nation to help the underprivileged gain the tools to better their lives. I am proud to have served in Americorps VISTA. My point is that while he was a very unpopular President, egocentric and not the nicest guy in the world, he did a whole lot of good too for our country. We can't overlook the good and just concentrate on all the bad things in our government. As you stated, what is the alternative to governments? Anarchy is the only alternative. Most of the men who established the Constitution and signed it owned slaves. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves. In fact, who doesn't have skeletons in their closest? As Jesus Christ said, " Let the man without sin cast the first stone." In spite of all that may be bad or all that we dislike about our government, this is still the greatest nation on earth. I would much rather have our government than live in Iraq or Afghanistan. Because there we would not be allowed to say anything against the government, we would not have a voice or a choice of who is the leader of our country. Even though our system of electing a president needs to be changed so we have more of a choice in who runs for the office.

Excellent point Sabra. You have so much wisdom for one so young.

Connie

Connie,

My mom used to train VISTA volunteers.

Many of the programs and much of the civil rights legislation enacted during the Johnson administration, including VISTA I'm pretty sure, came originally from JFK's ideas and passed through Congress in the wake of his assassination. His sacrifice was not in vain. But that's a family who have sacrificed a lot ... including, I guess I would have to say to be fair, Ted Kennedy's occasional losses of sanity.

Maria

Ahh, a link I share with your mom, Maria Tell her I said God Bless her and the work she did. I had so much admiration for my VISTA trainers. Was she training volunteers in 1995? Because that is when I went to Chicago for my training. Who knows? Maybe she was one of my trainers.

I think if I recall from the Biography I read on Lyndon B. Johnson that you are exactly right. Pres. John Kennedy began the Peace Corps in his administration to give underprivledged countries the tools to better their lives and it was he who concieved the idea of also forming a domestic Peace Corps. He was assassinated before he could implement that program, thus Lyndon B.Johnson followed through and established VISTA in his administration.

Love, Connie

Hello Everyone,
Sorry I haven't replied sooner but I have been out of town and a few things have popped up that I had to take care of. I'm going to post again so I can elaborate more on others posts. I hope to have more time later today/tonight. I have been forming a outline in my head so I can touch on certain issues in this post. You guys are very thought provoking
Woody

Sabra's question to Woody:

In reply to:

---

You said in your post above: "I distrust all governments . . ." . Surely there is no perfect government since a government is made up of people and the last I heard, humans are not infallible . But I am curious, and interested if you can suggest an alternative to government.

---

I can't give Woody's answer to that question, of course, but I can give my own, since I would make the same statement about mistrusting all governments. In fact, the founding fathers of America made it quite clear that they, too, distrusted all governments, including the one they were creating! That's why the vast majority of the creative effort that went into crafting the Constitution was explicitly about limiting the power of government. Thomas Jefferson said it most succinctly in his famous statement, "that government which governs least, governs best."

The constitutional framers believed that government was always to be mistrusted for the simple reason that government in its barest essence is the legalized use of physical force ... and since by nature "power corrupts," no one can be "trusted" with power ... rather, power must be so widely distributed, severely limited, and unambiguously overseen and subject to revocation by the people, that there is as little opportunity as possible for it to be used in corrupt ways. They believed that government was a "necessary evil" for some FEW areas of life that could ONLY be dealt with by governmental power (physical force), specifically the protection of citizens' natural rights through police power to enforce law, and the defense of the nation against external aggression through military power. But although these very limited powers were necessaary functions that could only be carried out by government, they were well aware that over time power-hungry individuals in ANY form of government would attempt to abuse that power for the benfit of themselves and their private interests. Their approach to the inherently untrustworthy nature of government was not to find an "alternative" for those areas where there IS no alternative, but rather to limit the necessary power of government severly by dividing it up into separate branches each with the power to restrain the other branches, by giving the people numerous remedies and protections against their government (amendment, impeachment, habeus corpus, the right to keep and bear arms, and so on), and by flatly denying to government ALL power not deemed to be essential to the task of protecting citizens rights from violation by criminals or foreign aggressors.

That's also my own "alternative" to government as it is conceived today, as a massive institution with power OVER its citizens.

The idea that government cannot be trusted, and that therefore people must be protected against it, probably finds its origin in the Magna Carta, and its fullest expression in the U.S. Constitution. The current trend toward massive government power is a historical step BACWARD to the despotic rule of emperors and warlord-kings that preceded these developments.

Love,
Greg

Connie, you are absolutely right that there are no perfect people in any government, and never have been.

However in defense of my hero Thomas Jefferson , who as you correctly point out owned slaves, I will say this: in Jefferson's melieu, slave ownership was taken for granted as a natural way of life, unquestioned. But the measure of humanity's greatness is the ability to transcend what society presents to us as the "unquestioned" realities of life. With the development of Jefferson's independent libertarian philosophy, he came to see the wrongness of slavery and freed his own slaves, and went on to argue passionately for the abolition of slavery in the Constitution ... in fact this was the biggest divisive issue in the Constitutional debates, and one which Jefferson unfortunately lost: in his opinion (and mine) the biggest flaw in the Constitution as it was finally passed.

Love,
Greg

Hello Everyone,
After reading Greg's post my mind is racing along with my other thoughts and they have collided together.

Greg hit some of the areas I was going to talk about and explained it well. If you go back thur history, you will notice when a country becomes a Democracy (rule of the majority.. ie Ruplicans as of now- are the majority ) corruption is carried out via the voting process. The government creates programs that in reality are created to destroy the competition ( EPA CDC, NHI(National Health Institution, etc..) For example, The NHI can have a report that Chiropractors are not scientific or proven or some silly report to the public.This becomes the official truth because it's a government report. Actually, the government is getting rid of a business or competition. Or the AMA conspiring to erradicate Chiropractic from the healthcare business. This is a fact. A Chiropraactor sued the AMA for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and won at the Supreme Court. Meaning the AMA was trying to have a monopoly on the healthcare business. Select people are chosen to be on the board of the AMA.
By eliminating the competiton, the government controls utlities, transportation, etc.. In this manner, they control your money because they recieve your money from your regular bills plus our the tax money that we pay. This democracy creates a Socialist form of government thus creating a different economic system. This system causes prices to become high and quality to become poor. Why? Because the government is taking so much money from us that we stop working; realizing we can't make a living any more and our government is not helping us. Then guess what? An inherant cycle occures... Anarchy This happened to Greeks..

If a major leader does not do what the Elite want, they are assasinated. For example, President Kennedy wanted to eliminate the CIA, allow intrest free money( Lincoln wanted to do this too.) (Our US money is printed and sold with intrest we pay taxes on) he wanted to legalize marijuana because he was using it for his low back pain, and stop the Viatnam War. President Johnson was sworn in because he would do what the Elite wanted and the Vietnam war was back on; this helped make the Department of Defense money and have control of the drug money. Our government controls the drug trade and funnels this money into the stock market to laundry it. They create a drug war in order to eliminate the compitition and use our taxes to fund their programs. When in fact the CIA and others use drugs to destablize a country or parts of the US in order to control it. Our country along with Britian have created wars and finacial collaspes in order to create more government programs that only causes people to become too dependant on the government. They make us believe we are incapable of taking care of ourselves.

I like what te Tao Te Ching says about life.
"If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control,
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be,
The more weapons you have,
the less secure peole will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore, the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and the people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and the people become serene.
I let go of all desires for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Here is another bit of Tao wisdom-

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the city.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.



Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men,
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.

And finally here is one of my favorites

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strenght,
mastering yourself is true power.


Woody

The teeth are hard and fall out,
The tongue is soft and remains.



Love,
Greg

Hi Woody and Greg

You both have added a lot of wisdom here. I love the quotes on Taoism you posted, Woody. They are very wise and worth copying and passing on.

I agree fully with what you have both said about government here and how corrupt it can become it we don't question things going on and keep watchful eyes on the men in power. I think it is what we should be doing. I always told my kids when they were growing up to "question authority." They often questioned mine.

I think that what Sabra was saying is how I feel about it as well. We have to be careful not to give into a kind of mass paranoia about government where we look for plots and conspiracies in everything the government does or mistrust everything the government says. So we have to use our reason and logic when we question and not just be guided by our emotions. Because we usually find what we are looking for. If we are looking for plots and conspiracies in everything, we will find it because it's how we perceive it. That is kind of what I had in mind in my previous post. So there has to be a balance on our part so we don't get paranoid about everything the government does. We have to be able to see where there is good too. However, I agree with you both that we can't just follow blindly either. We have to question things. We have to speak out on the issues and the wrongs we see in our government. To just follow blindy is relinquishing our responsibilites for what goes on in our government and our world. It's relinquishing our freedoms and our rights. After all the U.S. is supposed to be a government, "of the people, for the people and by the people." In reality it has not been that way for a long time now. This government, as woody suggested, is run by special interest groups. We need to put a stop to the special interest groups and the lobbying that goes on in Washington, D.C. As it stands now this government is run "of special interest groups, for special interest groups and by special interest groups." In this system we have groups of people, who for their own monetary gains or agenda gains, are dictating the policy in our government. IT HAS TO BE STOPPED!! If it is not stopped, as woody suggested, we will go the way of the Greeks and other governments in history. When a government gets so corrupt, it will fail. The U.S. is definitely heading in that direction. Bush is sitting by right now and letting the corporations rape the economy for their own monetary gains. WE the people are being oppressed and suffering because of that. I for one am ready to go dump some tea in Boston harbor again because the voice of the people in this country has been taken away in favor of special interest groups.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I agree with what you both said, but we need to keep a balance in ourselves so as not to become suspicious of everything and look for conpiracies in everything. We need to use our reason and logic and not just follow our emotions.

Love, Connie

Hi Again

Woody, something you said in your post about the Greeks reminded me of what was written in Thomas Merton's book, The Nonviolent Alternative . So I am going to post it for you all to read. Thomas Merton wrote this book during the Viet Nam war. It was orginally published in 1971 after his death. Thomas Merton never saw the end of the Viet Nam war. He died in 1968 in an automobile accident in Rome.

In his book Thomas Merton says: "The climate of irrationality, confusion and violence which is characteristic of such times as ours is after all nothing new. The circumstances are different, but in the end we can find in our world much that is analogous to the classic discription of Athens after the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides masterfully outlines the political situation of a rich society that is in a crisis of decline and change."
Merton then goes on to present Thucydides words:

War destroys the comfortable routine of life, trains us in violence and shapes our character according to the new conditions...The cause of all these evils was imperialism, whose fundamental motives are ambition and greed, and from which arises the fanaticism of class conflict. The politicians on each side were armed with high-sounding slogans....Both boasted that they were servants of the community and both made the community the prize of war. The only purpose of their policy was the extermination of their opponents, and to achieve this they stopped at nothing. Even worse were the reprisals which they perpetuated in total disregard of morality or of the common good. The only standard which they recognized was party caprice and so they were prepared, either by the perversion of justice or by revoluntionary action, to satisfy the passing passions begotten by the struggle....Society was divided into warring camps suspicious of one another. Where no contract or obligation was binding, nothing could heal the conflict, and since security was only to be found in the assumption that nothing was secure, everyone took steps to preserve himself and no one could afford to trust his neighbor. On the whole the baser types survived best. Aware of their own deficiencies and their opponents' ablilities, they resorted boldly to violence, before they were defeated in debate, and struck down, by conspiracy, minds more versatile than their own.
(Thucydides, Peloponnesian War )

Merton adds: " In such a situation, Plato, who hoped that a return to reason could be brought about by the participation of the philosopher in public life, also recognized that intelligent men would be tempted to withdraw from a situation they regarded as 'hopeless'. The lover of justice, Plato wrote, seeing himself as though thrown into a 'den of beasts' and unable to change the jungle law around him: ' Will remain quietly at his own work like a traveller caught in a storm who retreats behind a wall to shelter from the driving gusts of dust and hail. Seeing the rest of the world full of iniquity, he will be content to keep his own life on earth untainted by wickedness and impious actions, so that he may leave this would with a fair hope of the next, at peace with himself and God' " ( Plato's Republic, 496 )

Merton says: " It is perhaps true that sometimes indivduals may be forced into this position, but to view it as normal and to accept it as preferable to the risks and conflicts of public life is an admission of defeat, an abdication of responsibility. This secession into individualistic concern with one's own salvation alone may in fact leave the way all the more open for unscrupulous men and groups to gain and wield unjust powers."

Love Connie