Police State News
- Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
New Law: NO FLY FOR ALL AMERICANS!
You wanted it now you've got it!
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
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
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
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
If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States
to this list. For more information on this proposed regulation, see
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
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
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
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.
Bush hailed the law as a crucial tool in the war on terrorism and
said it would allow prosecution of several high-level terror
Human rights groups and attorneys for the detainees say the law is
unconstitutional. Prisoners normally have the right to challenge
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
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
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
Friday's letter from John L. McPherson, the CIA's associate general
counsel, lists two documents that pertain to the ACLU's records
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-
"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."