Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Police State News

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com New Law: NO FLY FOR ALL AMERICANS! You wanted
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 23, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      New Law: NO FLY FOR ALL AMERICANS!
      You wanted it now you've got it!
      WakeUpFromYourSlumber.com

      This only applies to those Useful Idiots (TM) sheeple who believe
      everything Zionist Media Brainwashes them with.

      If this law comes into effect, ALL AMERICANS beginning Jan 14, 2007 -
      - That's next year, in 2 months or so -- will have their freedom of
      movement taken away (as if it's not already severely limited).

      Read below for more info:

      Think about the ramifications...

      They are treating us like sheep, herding us up, readying for the
      slaughter.... :( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      We're All Prisoners,

      Now: US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA
      International Politics October 26, 2006 Forget no-fly lists.

      If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14, 2007, we'll all be
      on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us permission to leave-
      or re-enter-the United States.

      The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all
      airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain
      clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the
      United States.

      It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document"
      that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a
      virtually unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any
      time you want.

      When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the agency
      says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the request at
      all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United States.

      Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder on
      assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to
      expire, so you board your flight back to the United States.

      But wait! You can't get on, because you don't have permission from
      the HSA. Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a
      squalid detention center, where you and others who are now
      effectively "stateless persons" are detained, potentially
      indefinitely, until their immigration status is sorted out.

      Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United
      States?

      No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be an
      administrative determination made secretly, with no right of appeal.

      Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant, without
      probable cause and without even any particular degree of suspicion.

      Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn't like you, you're a
      prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or
      not you hold a U.S. passport.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
      right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
      right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." The
      United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom of
      travel."

      So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a lengthy
      court battle, both nationally and internationally.

      Think this can't happen? Think again.

      It's ALREADY happening.

      Earlier this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-
      old a native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The
      prohibition lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a
      few weeks ago.

      Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent
      history that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without
      permission.

      If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States
      to this list. For more information on this proposed regulation, see
      http:// hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

      *****

      US: Immigrants May Be Held Indefinitely
      Nov 13, 2006
      By MATT APUZZO

      WASHINGTON (AP) - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be
      held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge
      their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said
      Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of
      detainees.

      In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
      in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism
      law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to
      foreigners captured and held in the United States.

      Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001
      while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy
      combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month,
      strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in
      federal courts.

      That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-
      Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come
      under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their
      imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration
      violations or for other crimes.

      "It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can
      be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-
      Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them,
      can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."

      The new law says that enemy combatants will be tried before military
      commissions, not a civilian judge or jury, and establishes different
      rules of evidence in the cases. It also prohibits detainees from
      challenging their detention in civilian court.

      In a separate court filing in Washington on Monday, the Justice
      Department defended that law as constitutional and necessary.

      Government attorneys said foreign fighters arrested as part of an
      overseas military action have no constitutional rights and are being
      afforded more legal rights than ever.

      In its short filing in the Al-Marri case, however, the Justice
      Department doesn't mention that Al-Marri is being held at a military
      prison in South Carolina - a fact that his attorneys say affords him
      the same rights as anyone else being held in the United States.

      The Justice Department noted only that the new law applies to all
      enemy combatants "regardless of the location of the detention."

      The Bush administration maintains that al-Marri is an al-Qaida
      sleeper agent. The Defense Department ordered a review of Al-Marri's
      status as an enemy combatant be conducted if, as requested, the case
      is thrown out of court.

      *****

      Administration: Detainees Have No Rights
      Monday November 13, 2006
      By MATT APUZZO
      Associated Press Writer

      WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Monday that
      Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no right to challenge their detentions
      in civilian courts and that lawsuits by hundreds of detainees should
      be dismissed.

      In court documents filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
      District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department defended the
      military's authority to arrest people oversees and detain them
      indefinitely without access to courts.

      It's the first time that argument has been spelled out since
      President Bush signed a law last month setting up military
      commissions for the thousands of foreigners being held in U.S.
      prisons abroad.

      Bush hailed the law as a crucial tool in the war on terrorism and
      said it would allow prosecution of several high-level terror
      suspects.

      Human rights groups and attorneys for the detainees say the law is
      unconstitutional. Prisoners normally have the right to challenge
      their imprisonment.

      The Justice Department said Monday that the detainees have no
      constitutional rights. Giving military detainees access to civilian
      courts ``would severely impair the military's ability to defend this
      country,'' government attorneys wrote.

      ``Congress could have simply withdrawn jurisdiction over these
      matters and left the decision of whether to detain enemy aliens held
      abroad to the military,'' the Justice Department wrote.

      Instead, the new military commission structure established
      ``unprecedented'' levels of review for detainees, the attorneys
      wrote.

      On the Net:

      Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

      *****

      CIA Acknowledges 2 Interrogation Memos
      Papers Called Too Sensitive for Release
      By Dan Eggen
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Tuesday, November 14, 2006; A29

      After years of denials, the CIA has formally acknowledged the
      existence of two classified documents governing aggressive
      interrogation and detention policies for terrorism suspects,
      according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

      But CIA lawyers say the documents -- memos from President Bush and
      the Justice Department -- are still so sensitive that no portion can
      be released to the public.

      The disclosures by the CIA general counsel's office came in a letter
      Friday to attorneys for the ACLU. The group had filed a lawsuit in
      U.S. District Court in New York two years ago under the Freedom of
      Information Act, seeking records related to U.S. interrogation and
      detention policies.

      The lawsuit has resulted in the release of more than 100,000 pages
      of documents, including some that revealed internal debates over the
      policies governing prisoners held at the military detention facility
      at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many other records have not been released
      and, in some cases, their existence has been revealed only in media
      reports.

      Friday's letter from John L. McPherson, the CIA's associate general
      counsel, lists two documents that pertain to the ACLU's records
      request.

      The ACLU describes the first as a "directive" signed by Bush
      governing CIA interrogation methods or allowing the agency to set up
      detention facilities outside the United States. McPherson describes
      it as a "memorandum." In September, Bush confirmed the existence of
      secret CIA prisons and transferred 14 remaining terrorism suspects
      from them to Guantanamo Bay.

      The second document is an August 2002 legal memo from the Justice
      Department's Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA general counsel. The
      ACLU describes it as "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA
      may use against top al-Qaeda members." (This document is separate
      from another widely publicized Justice memo, also issued in August
      2002, that narrowed the definition of torture. The Justice
      Department has since rescinded the latter.)

      The ACLU relied on media reports to identify and describe the two
      documents, but the CIA and other agencies had not previously
      confirmed their existence. McPherson wrote that neither document can
      be released to the public for reasons of security and attorney-
      client privilege.

      "The documents are withheld in their entirety because there is no
      meaningful non-exempt information that can be reasonably segregated
      from the exempt information," McPherson wrote. A spokesman for the
      CIA declined to comment yesterday.

      Amrit Singh, one of the ACLU's attorneys on the case, said the
      disclosures may make it easier for the group to argue in favor of
      releasing the documents.

      "For more than three years, they've refused to even confirm or deny
      the existence of these records," Singh said, referring to the
      group's initial document request in October 2003. "The fact that
      they're now choosing to do so confirms that their position was
      unjustified from the start. . . . Now we can begin to actually
      litigate the release of these documents."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.