@landru: "Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
by Dan Hamburg | February 3, 2008 - 10:58am 
by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
[This essay will appear in the February 4 edition of the San Francisco
Chronicle.]
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him
the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the
foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
 Winston Churchill, November 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the US
government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest
a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and non-citizen alike), and detain
people without legal or constitutional recourse. 
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of
single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and
Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within
the United States in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants
in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."1
The government has also contracted with several companies to build
thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles,
ostensibly to transport detainees.2
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is
part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its
goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential
terrorists."3 
Fraud-busters like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have complained
about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars shouldn't go
taxpayer-gouging Halliburton.4 But the real question is: what kind of
"new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention
facilities in nearly every state of the Union with the capacity to
house perhaps millions of people? According to whistleblower Daniel
Ellsberg, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after
the next 9/11 for Middle Easterners, Muslims and possibly
dissenters."5 
Section 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
"Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the
executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more
than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in
response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist
attack or any other condition in which the President determines that
domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials
cannot maintain public order."6
The NDAA signifies a continuation of................
Posted on the Smirking Chimp,  February 3, 2008.  
<url>
Read the rest and participate in the discussion there.  More people
in America read there than on Usenet.  Bring yourself up to date, SB"
    @okamuraj005: "Roosevelt, used his powers to "imprison" Japanese Americas (translation: 
Amercian citizens) and Germans at the start of WWII, and they committed no 
crime in the United States, was considered guilty even though no evidence 
was presented in a court of law to prove that they were guilty.  The Mariel 
Boat lift happened when Carter was the President as I recall.  What did he 
do?  He imprisoned some who he believed were criminals that Castro let out 
of his prisons to be part of the people he allowed to flee Cuba.  Though 
they committed crimes in Cuba, they committed no crimes in the United 
States, and Cuba did not ask the United States to find them and hold them 
for deportation.  These Cubans also were thrown in prison, without the 
normal due process concerns some of you on the left have accussed Bush of 
doing when it comes to the "detainees" at Guantanmo.  But there is a 
difference.  The detainees at Guantanamo were suspected of being the enemy, 
whose goal was to kill Americans.
"Lyle Andrew" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>"
    @landru: "<quote>
Emailed to me by another Republican who doesn't read Usenet.  Not that
many Americans do.  These websites are busy though.  The Smirking
Chimp didn't write this though, he was too busy Smirking. "
    @landru: "On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 12:20:28 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<quote>
Roosevelt is dead, the current president is George W Bush and you sir
need a reality check.  No need to top post.  I put you on the bottom
where you belong......where you here or there in 1941?  If you were 
one of the interred here, then I might understand your ranteous
attitude.  
*We should study history to avoid repeating mistakes.  Instead we use
history to be certain we repeat them.      "
    @landru: "<quote>
Well, let's see.  My grandmother went to 93, my father to 89 and his
father to 87 and I'm 65.....sorry about that, Spammy.  You appear to
be about 15 so you'll probably outlive me.  Live with it.  "
    @okamuraj005: ""Lyle Andrew" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
When we ignore what happened in the past, and make an arguement about what 
is happening now, it is pure hypocrisy, especially when what happened in the 
past is basically the same thing that is happening now.
No need to top post.  I put you on the bottom
Ah yes, again to the insults.  Can you possibly have an arguement with 
someone without resorting to insults?  Why do I have to be one of the 
interned to have the opinions I have about the interned?  I have opinons 
about the Cubans who were thrown in jail during the Cuban Boat Lift and I 
never lived in Cuba, nor am I Cuban.  I have opinions about those held at 
Guantanamo, and I have never been in ajimenez@example.com.
yes, we should.  "If" it is a mistake....."
    @landru: "On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 06:36:50 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<quote>
There is no correlation between any previous military engagement and
our current one save the spending of a great deal of money and the
deaths of our own boys.  If you want facts, stick to the present and
leave the past where it belongs, in the past.  
I'm not surprised you took the approach of taking my question as an
insult.  This is another one of your tactics.  Accuse me of insulting
you, when I am not.  Then twisting the question to Cuba and
Guantanamo.  You have no need to tell me you were never in prison in
Guantanamo.  I didn't ask you that.  So, how can anyone possibly have
an argument when one side refuses to acknowledge the other even has a
side?  This is another example of how you "Rave" on.  
My comments have nothing to do with past events that are not
considered mistakes.  Do we need permission to repeat what worked
well?  "
    @okamuraj005: ""Lyle Andrew" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
You sure have a weird definition of what an insult is.  What did I just say 
that leads you to believe there was an insult in the statement made?
This is another one of your tactics.  Accuse me of insulting
Another statement which is not based on what I said....care to give an 
example?
Then twisting the question to Cuba and
How did I "twist" the question of Cuba and Guantanmo....I await your answer. 
It seems to me the one doing the "twisting" is you not me."
    @landru: "On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:41:14 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<quote>
Look back where I said, ".....where you here or there in 1941?" 
No look where you replied with "Ah yes, again to the insults."  Then
you ask "Can you possibly have an argument with someone without
resorting to insults?" 
I just did and you just ignored it. 
What you twisted was my question. I asked you were you were in 1941.
Obviously you couldn't be in Guantanamo. You mentioned it to spin the
question.  "
    @okamuraj005: ""Lyle Andrew" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
You said, "No need to top post.  I put you on the bottom where you 
belong......where you here or there in 1941?  If you were one of the 
interred here, then I might understand your ranteous attitude....
".
Well, I do apologize for that.  I was a young boy living in Hawaii in 1941.
As long as you also list what did not work out so well... "
    @landru: "On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:45:42 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<quote>
Thanks. It would help more if I knew how young that young boy was then
but I do understand where you're coming from.  A lot of people believe
that Roosevelt was wrong in what he did.  Last time I was at Pearl,
there was one of the survivors who made mention that a lot of people
believed Roosevelt knew it was coming.  We have people today who
believed that Bush knew it was coming.  I'll go so far as to say that
I am not qualified to make any assumptions, then or now.  
Allowing Bush to have 8 years of our lives.  That would be No. 1a B:
is letting Cheney in there with him.  We knew what we were getting yet
all the people could do was think about Clinton and fix the elections.
And no, I have no personal facts to support it.  Just an opinion.  I
could go on and search out the hundreds of web pages that support
anything I said, but I'm not about to do what you guys do, support an
opinion with another opinion.     "
    @okamuraj005: ""Lyle Andrew" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
I did not think you would.  I had "hoped" you would, but you confirmed what 
I thought you would do. "
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 11, "forum_name": "austin.politics.20140610.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-austin.politics.parquet'}