<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All,<BR>
<BR>
Fyi,<BR>
<BR>
Beverley<BR>
<BR>
TWO 'ACTS' OF TYRANNY ON THE SAME DAY!
By Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
December 7, 2006
Updated June 2, 2007 <BR>
On October 17, 2006, 'a date which will live in infamy' . . . there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an 'enemy combatant' and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.
The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007' which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
About The Military Commissions Act of 2006 . . .
"A writ of habeas corpus which is Latin for 'you have the body' [as proof] is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody."(1)
"The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is 'the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action'."(1)
<BR>
The Signing of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 <BR>
Expressing the pessimist's view was law professor Jonathan Turley who wrote: "The Congress just gave the president despotic powers and you could hear a yawn across the country [. . . ] People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon."(2)
Turley also said that: "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."(3)
You can watch this MSNBC video where Keith Olbermann and guest Jonathon Turley, Constitutional Law professor at George Washington University discuss the Military Commissions Act here.
About the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 . . .
The NDAA essentially eliminated the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act so that the president can declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
"The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact."(4)
"In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law . It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions."(4)
<BR>
The Signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 <BR>
What 'Rights' Have Been Taken From You?
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, . . . [whereby] "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading."(5)
As far as an American citizen is concerned the definition of the term 'unlawful enemy combatant' has ominous import for them. The law states the following:
"(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means--"(6) <BR>
"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or "(6)
"(ii) a person who , before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense ."(6) <BR>
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word 'person' rather than 'alien'."(5)
All Americans should know that the suspension of the 'writ of habeas corpus' by the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S.Constitution which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Yesterday, [1/18/07] during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales . . . was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, [Specter disagreed] then [Gonzales] added, "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution."
Specter pushed back. "Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?"
You MUST watch this EXTREMELY DISTURBING video: http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/videos/GonzalesOnHabeas.html#Title
Ominously, the full text of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The fact that the CFR published the 'Act' would appear to be prima facie evidence of the Shadow Government's support for its genesis!(6)
The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings , allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,’ never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?"(7)
Sadly, the American Forces Press Service, propagandized the signing by utilizing the most common form of deception . . . omission. Read how they announced the signing but uttered not one peep about the potentially devastating future it has unleashed.(8)
<BR>
<BR>
The Signing of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 <BR>
What 'Rights' Have Been Taken From You?
"On September 28, by a vote of 65-34, the Senate formally passed S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The next day, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the act by a vote of 250-170, . . . [whereby] "alien unlawful enemy combatants ... [to be] subject to trial by military commissions" without the constitutional safeguards American citizens possess against illegal detainment and judicial railroading."(5)
As far as an American citizen is concerned the definition of the term 'unlawful enemy combatant' has ominous import for them. The law states the following:
"(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - (A) The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means--"(6) <BR>
"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or "(6)
"(ii) a person who , before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense ."(6) <BR>
"Notice that this definition contains no exception for Americans; it throws the blanket over citizen and alien alike by using the word 'person' rather than 'alien'."(5)
All Americans should know that the suspension of the 'writ of habeas corpus' by the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' is a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S.Constitution which states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’
Yesterday, [1/18/07] during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales . . . was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, [Specter disagreed] then [Gonzales] added, "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution."
Specter pushed back. "Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?"
You MUST watch this EXTREMELY DISTURBING video: http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/videos/GonzalesOnHabeas.html#Title
Ominously, the full text of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' was published by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The fact that the CFR published the 'Act' would appear to be prima facie evidence of the Shadow Government's support for its genesis!(6)
The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings , allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,’ never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?"(7)
Sadly, the American Forces Press Service, propagandized the signing by utilizing the most common form of deception . . . omission. Read how they announced the signing but uttered not one peep about the potentially devastating future it has unleashed.(8)
Senator John Warner
Martial Law Now Stalks America . . .
On October 17, 2006, "Public Law 109-364, or the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007' (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a 'public emergency' and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'."(5)
What the National Defense Authorization Act does is end the Posse Comitatus Act of 1787. Posse Comitatus is Latin for 'power of the country.' It WAS a "law, [that] was championed by far-sighted Southern lawmakers in 1878. They had experienced a fifteen year military occupation by the US Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. They understood the heel of a jackboot."(9)
"In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Airforce and Marines from participating in arrest, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act."(9)
All these new tyrannical laws have been created obsessively to combat the amorphous concept of 'fighting terrorism' . . . an undefined and ever present boogey man. So not only is the military now permitted to be used around the country, the president can take over the National Guard and the Coast Guard too. It can happen under ANY pretext, at which time the president will become the dictator-in-chief.
According to Gen. Tommy Franks, martial law will replace the Constitution after the next terror attack . In an interview with Cigar Aficionado he said: "It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."(10)
Written Dissent to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007:
No matter your opinion of Cynthia McKinney, her 26 page dissent of the NDAA of 2007 is very compelling and highlights the damage and erosion, of tasks and performance, taking place between the police and the military in direct contradiction of our Constitution. The following excerpt is from the section concerning the issue of Posse Comitatus [pp. 30-31 .pdf (pp. 528-529)] which can be found here: (11)
This Authorization should also have reaffirmed the principle of Posse Comitatus for military forces, police and contracted security or combat forces. This Constitutional principle creates a bright line between military and police functions.
In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus Act of 1867 [sic - i.e.,1878], which re-established the Constitutional principle and practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
The experience of the founding fathers with the British model that combined the functions was enough to cause them to set that division sharply in administrative powers and civilian command of the military.
The principles began to be eroded in the period following the end of the Civil War, and the effective occupation of areas of the south by federal troops who were holding military tribunals, carrying out executions of citizens and usurping local police and judicial control. Their excesses came to the attention of the post-war Congress and they passed the Posse Comitatus Act to forbid the military being used to enforce laws.
Further erosion followed the end of the Vietnam War, when police departments were increasingly militarized in training and equipment as well as employing a large number of returning war veterans. SWAT teams were created, a clearly militarized police function, getting training on military bases with advanced weapons.
When President George H.W. Bush came into office in the 1980s, his programs made increased use of military troops and equipment in the war against drugs, supporting police and collecting intelligence in regard to civilian crimes. Joint Military Task Forces were created that combined DoD, FBI, SWAT, ATF and local police in sieges at Wounded Knee, Waco, Texas and against MOVE in Philadelphia, using tanks and military explosives.:,
President Bush has ample authority under provisions of existing laws on disaster response to mobilize and command any and all federal assets, including military forces. State directed National Guard units have always worked in conjunction with federal troops without being put under federal control themselves . Both National Guard and regular military forces are authorized under federal and state laws to use force to protect lives, property and public safety during a declared emergency. Police functions have been wisely left to local police and state National Guard forces, except when the situation was so dire they could not function.
<BR>
<BR>
Executive Orders and PDDs Say How They Will Do It!
Once martial law is invoked, then the Executive Orders (EOs) concerned with national security or defense issues are then ALSO invoked. These were previously known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they were renamed 'Presidential Decision Directives', commonly known as PDDs.
For example PDD 63, issued in 1998 that speaks to protecting America's critical infrastructure "including telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, and transportation-that supports the U.S. economy, government, and military."(12)
"The aim of PDD 63 was to introduce an improved information system infrastructure that is secure and interconnected by the year 2003, and to significantly increase security to government systems by the year 2000. PDD 63 designed a new configuration to protect the country's critical infrastructure. Some of the components are as follows: <BR>
A national coordinator to handle critical infrastructure, as well as foreign terrorism and domestic mass destruction; <BR>
The National Infrastructure Protection Center at the Federal Bureau of Investigation to bring together representatives from various agencies for information sharing and collaboration; <BR>
Information Sharing and Analysis Center to be set up by the private sector in cooperation with the government; <BR>
A National Infrastructure Assurance Council made up of private sector leaders and state/local officials to provide advice for a national plan; . . ." <BR>
Why and who will be those from the 'private sector' running our government in a time of crisis? Will it be those international bankers and industrialists? It gives no parameters. It is concerning that they could ALL be the very people who want a One World Monopoly and the creation of the North American Union. What better, quick and efficient way to enforce their plans than to have them spring forward using a domestic tragedy like 9/11? But then that has always been their game plan.
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress . The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power."
Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders."
But Today's Executive Orders Go FAR Beyond Those Rules As These Quotes Attest . . .
"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998 (13)
"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999 (13)
Read over the following Executive Orders so you can understand what TOTAL, COMPLETE, and DICTATORIAL POWER these orders will invoke. Go here to search for the actual text for the Executive Orders as well at the current disposition of those Executive Orders: (14)
Go to that Federal Register and check out the following Executive Orders: 13010, 13130, 13228, 13231, 13234, 14284, 13284, 13286 (transfers control of 12919 to DHS).
Pay Particular Attention to Executive Order 12919 . . .
The president of the United States, with the help of federal agencies, will have control over the following, as annotated by Paula Demers in 1996: (15)
<BR>
(a) All transportation, "regardless of ownership." This means that if they need your car, they’ve got it. They will control all public transportation also.
(b) All forms of energy, including "petroleum, gas (natural and manufactured) , electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal), atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines)." This means the federal government will have complete control over who will have power (electricity, etc.) and who won’t. They will be able to "pull the plug" on us at their discretion.
(c) All farm equipment . Farmers will not have to be part of "the production or preparation for market use of food resources." They did this in Russia. The farmers worked for the government.
(d) All fertilizer . This means that any product, or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements--nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--will be able to be confiscated by the government. The reason they have this combination is because it includes anything that can be used as a plant nutrient. If you want a garden, forget it.
(e) All food resources . ALL means ALL. This includes all "commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products that are being ingested by either human beings or animals...." This includes all "starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores." That means they can come into your house and take all your food. Period. Catherine Bertini, the executive director "UN World Food Program" made an interesting comment in Beijng, China, at the UN 4th World Conference on Women in September, 1995. She said, "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." [Henry Kissinger has infamously said: 'Food can be used as a weapon!']
(f) All food resource facilities . This means "plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for production, processing, distribution and storage (including cold food storage)." They go on to say that it includes "livestock and poultry feed and seed." In other words, they will control anything that has to do with food.
(j) All health resources . This means EVERYTHING. They will have control over all "materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies)." They will be able to come into your home and take your medicines.
(k) All metals and minerals. [Think gold and silver confiscation]
(m) All water resources . ALL usable water from all of the sources within the jurisdiction of the United States. All the water that can be "managed, controlled and allocated to meet emergency requirements." Not only will they be able to turn off your water supply, they can come and take any water you have stored in your house.
</FONT> </HTML>