Habeas corpus ("You have the body")

This ancient law is one which, basically, allows rights for somebody to fair trial, ie innocent until proved guilty, but also ensuring governments behave themselves by preventing arbitrary arrest, forcing them to "produce the prisoner", and provide justification for detention as well. The bill being introduced now by the US administration, on the face of it for use only with suspected terrorists (forget the argument about whether even that is acceptable for a minute), actually overturns the right of habeas corpus. What they are sneaking in inside this bill is the ability for the president to designate who is an "illegal enemy combatant", and this does NOT exclude a US citizen.

Quote:(Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition)
"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."

Why would a foreign terrorist have "an allegiance or duty to the US"?

But anyway, as the New York Times has pointed out:
"A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
Do I need to go any further?

"Oh", we say, "but they wouldnt do that"....

Who he?

Interesting discoveries about the guy who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, the official inquiry into the events of Sept 11th 2001, Philip Zelikow. He was appointed by George Bush, and was and is effectively part of the administration. Bearing in mind that as executive director he had complete control over what questions they did or didn't ask (mostly didnt), it's interesting to read that:
"Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions," which he defines as “beliefs thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene." (Wikipedia)

And then an article co authored by Zelikow in 1998, called Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger:
"A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." (Foreign Affairs newsletter)

Prophetic huh?

And so we begin to see the truth seep out

This blogger, Nafeez Ahmed, (he teaches International Relations at the University of Sussex) usually has something interesting to say. But read the original full story here.
This is something I was always very suspicious about from the outset; Blair's total refusal to condemn the Lebanon situation and then absence during the terror arrests always felt wrong somehow. Yes, on holiday, I know. But this is getting really worrying now – the aim is quite plainly to inflate the atmosphere of fear of terrorism whether or not there are any actual plots or not - bluntly, to just invent them. Fly under the radar of the mainstream media for a while and you'll find an absolute ton of this stuff. We all say "don't believe what you read in the papers", but we didn't really think it mattered. Now it does.

Van part 2

This bit of genius is why he is a legend. With The Band (That's THE Band) doing Caravan in the 70s. Robbie Robertson on guitar

OK listen...

Now there are people who say I'm a 9/11 conspiracy nut, there are people who maybe believe some things but are not sure. Whatever you think, it's not a comfortable subject, and maybe I should just put my head in the sand with everyone else. But I have to ask myself who is the prime purveyor of fear? Then I doubt everything and go back to my comfort zone. But this thing just keeps on coming back. Alex Jones is well known for being a bit weird in America, but only in respect of the fact that he says things that the PTB don't like. He is loud. He is full on. But this is essential listening if you can try and get past your prejudices, and was on a national radio show (Talksport) last week. Yes Ok but this is what you get on my blog, so tough.

1984

"People who have nothing to hide - why would they worry?" Well I don't know - let's think about that one.
And in other news... Follow the money.