The system works to not allow a candidate who represents the public interest to get publicity for their campaign through the tightly-controlled corporate media, nor to appear in debates, or in most cases, even to appear on a ballot. There are thousands of hoops to jump through for this, and even a Green Party of millions has a difficult time getting on the ballot in many states. The ruling Forces of Greed (FOG) fear democracy more than anything else, guarding against it here and with nearly a thousand military bases abroad (in case it should break out somewhere else, and they might lose control of the local natural resources, access to consumers or cheap labor).
Democratic activists, not seeming to understand that actual democracy is not allowed, recently tried to get rid of the "superdelegate" rule which allows mostly DNC inside Party corporatists to have veto power over the popular vote in Democratic primaries, superdelegate votes far more powerful than votes of us mere peasants, so that if someone like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur or the likes should do well in an election, they can easily be replaced by a corporatist stooge acceptable to the establishment, including the ruling FOG, the National Security State, and their extremely compliant mass media on behalf of corporate greed at any cost.
But the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee would not hear of it. Superdelegates stay, Democracy continues to be thwarted, ironically by those who run a political party which goes by the bizarre euphemism "Democratic." Thankfully for the Dems, most of their rank and file haven't figured out the scam and continue to line up to have their votes altered.
Much of this pro-war line came from a propaganda story in Time Magazine, which has a long record of supporting war and corporate greed against the public interest.
For years we have been running reports at LUV News by Afghan women saying things are worse for females under the brutal warlords installed by the US government, as at least the Taliban protected women and girls from rape and murder which have become far more common under the warlords. There are as many religious fanatics in the current Afghanistan government as under the Taliban, some even advocating for extremely misogynist sharia laws to become the legal code of the land.
Some time ago we ran a story showing that many lipsticks had lead in them, and that it can cause brain damage if ingested.
Our corporations control the Food and Drug Administration so that they don't have to worry about any consequences from poisoning their customers. Campaign financing bribes allow them to put their people in charge of the agency, and of course, write the related laws in Congress.
When our government accuses you of being a terrorist without evidence being made public, even if you are an American citizen you can be murdered by government agents without having had a fair trial in a court of law, as things stand today. You are not given an opportunity to prove your innocence, and if a lawyer tries to represent you, the lawyer can get twenty years in prison just for giving you advice, and a million dollar fine (accused of aiding the enemy in times of war).
Any of us, of course, can be accused of being a terrorist, at any time, and subject to this. If it should happen to you, there is no place to appeal, nowhere to go for help, the highest levels of government will be on the side of murdering you, so you shouldn't even try to contact them.
These are the draconian rules of a fascist state. Thankfully, Bill Quigley is doing something about it, and tells us, following, about his actions to bring back the rule of law, as our "war on terrorism" takes us down a rabbit hole into a world of insanity --Jack
Why We Sued to Represent Anwar Aulaqi
By BILL QUIGLEY
Anwar Aulaqi is a US citizen and Muslim cleric living somewhere in Yemen. The US has put him on our terrorist list and is trying to assassinate him. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU filed suit today so we can be pro bono lawyers for his father, Nasser Aulaqi, to stop the government from killing him.
We filed suit today challenge the US requirement that lawyers must seek permission from the government before we can provide free pro bono legal representation to a US citizen.
This case will not decide whether the US can legally assassinate US citizens or anybody else. This case is about whether the government can deny pro bono lawyers to US citizens who the government accuses of being terrorists. Once we win the right to be lawyers for his father, we will challenge the constitutionality of the US efforts to kill him.
The barrier to us becoming lawyers is a set of rules enacted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (usually called OFAC) which is a part of the Treasury Department. US law essentially prohibits trading with the enemy in a time of war. OFAC regulations go further and prohibit lawyers from giving free representation to people on the terrorist list unless the government gives them permission. Violations trigger punishment of up to 20 years in jail and fines of up to one million dollars.
We think the US Constitution overrules these OFAC regulations. The First Amendment protects the right of non-profit lawyers and legal organizations to give pro bono legal representation to any US citizen. The Fifth Amendment protects the right of citizens to have that legal representation.
We know this is a controversial case. Representing someone accused of being a terrorist is a tough decision. CCR is a human rights organization. We condemn all killing of civilians for political purposes by any government or any organization or any individual.
What this case is really about is not Aulaqi but about our government disregarding the rule of law.
There are many reasons we can argue that premeditated killing by the government off the battlefield is illegal. The rule of law guaranteed by the US constitution binds even the President of the US and the military. Our constitutional system of checks and balances does not allow the executive branch of government to just decide in secret that they are going to kill people. The government certainly could not just execute him if he was in the US. The US would not allow other governments to come here and assassinate someone they opposed. And the US would never just fire drone strikes into the UK, China, Russia or Australia to kill someone. Yemen is over a thousand miles away from the battlefield of Afghanistan or Iraq. So why would anyone think it is legal to assassinate a US citizen in Yemen?
Despite these questions, Aulaqi has been the target of several unsuccessful drone strikes as the US military and CIA are actively trying to kill him.
These are all issues that should be decided in a court of law. That is why we are filing this suit.
His father, Nasser, said it best. If the government has proof his son violated the law, then they should charge him in public and let the law take its course.
If the government can find him to assassinate him, they can find him to bring him to justice.
The right to go to court to challenge the government is a core US value. It is important that we win the right to represent him no matter how controversial he is. Otherwise the government can deprive citizens of their right to a lawyer at the exact same time as they are trying to kill them. The courts should make these decisions and people deserve the right to have lawyers try to challenge the government. That is what we are after and that is fair.
Bill Quigley is legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. His email is quigley77@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment