Free People Claim Their Rights

Your rights are yours by the very nature of your birth. You have them whether a document or a government says so or not. And while governments at every level will always work to limit or destroy your rights, it’s up to you – and others – to defend them.

How to do that? Thomas Jefferson had what I believe to be the most important advice on this front:

“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

U.S. Military Struggling To Identify Racist Groups?

They call it 'rahowa' - short for racial holy war - and they are preparing for it by joining the ranks of the world's fiercest fighting machine, the U.S. military.

White supremacists, neo-Nazis and skinhead groups encourage followers to enlist in the Army and Marine Corps to acquire the skills to overthrow what some call the ZOG - the Zionist Occupation Government. Get in, get trained and get out to brace for the coming race war.

If this scenario seems like fantasy or bluster, civil rights organizations take it as deadly serious, especially given recent events. 

Former U.S. Army soldier Wade Page opened fire with a 9mm handgun at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on August 5, murdering six people and critically wounding three before killing himself during a shootout with police.

The U.S. Defense Department as well has stepped up efforts to purge violent racists from its ranks, earning praise from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked and exposed hate groups since the 1970s.

Page, who was 40, was well known in the white supremacist music scene. In the early 2000s he told academic researcher Pete Simi that he became a neo-Nazi after joining the military in 1992. 

Fred Lucas, who served with him, said Page openly espoused his racist views until 1998, when he was demoted from sergeant to specialist, discharged and barred from re-enlistment.

While at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, Page told Simi, he made the acquaintance of James Burmeister, a skinhead paratrooper who in 1995 killed a black Fayetteville couple in a racially motivated shooting. Burmeister was sentenced to life in prison and died in 2007.

'We don't really think this is a huge problem, at Bragg, and across the Army,' said Colonel Kevin Arata, a spokesman for Fort Bragg.

'In my 26 years in the Army, I've never seen it,' the former company commander said.

Reformed: Former Marine T.J. Leyden, who has since renounced the white power movement, said he joined the Marines to learn how to shoot

Experts have identified the presence of street gang members as a more widespread problem.

Even so, the Pentagon has launched three major pushes in recent decades to crack down on racist extremists.

The first directive was issued in 1986, when Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger ordered military personnel to reject supremacist organizations.

That failed to stop former Marine T.J. Leyden, with two-inch SS bolts tattooed above his collar, from serving from 1988 to 1991 while openly supporting neo-Nazi causes. 

A member of the Hammerskin Nation, a skinhead group, he said he hung a swastika from his locker, taking it down only when his commander politely asked him to ahead of inspections by the commanding general.

'I went into the Marine Corps for one specific reason: I would learn how shoot,' Leyden told Reuters. 'I also learned how to use C-4 [explosives], blow things up.

Leyden, 46, who has since renounced the white power movement and is a consultant for the anti-Nazi Simon Wiesenthal Center, added: 'I took all my military skills and said I could use these to train other people.'

RATTLED BY OKLAHOMA BLAST

In 1995, eight months before the Fort Bragg murders, two former Army soldiers bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, killing 168 people. 

With a growing awareness of the spreading militia movement, the Pentagon in 1996 banned military personnel from participating in supremacist causes and authorized commanders to cashier personnel for rallying, recruiting or training racists.

'What's scary about Page is that he served in the 1990s when putatively this was being treated quite seriously by the military.

There's plenty of other Pages who served during the war on terror, and we don't know what they're going to be doing over the next decade or so,' said Matt Kennard, author of the forthcoming book 'Irregular Army: How the U.S. Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror.'

Kennard argues the U.S. military was so desperate for troops while fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it allowed extremists, felons and gang members into the armed forces.

The military can grant a 'moral waiver' to allow a convicted criminal or otherwise ineligible person into the armed forces, and the percentage of recruits granted such waivers grew from 16.7 per cent in 2003 to 19.6 per cent in 2006, according to Pentagon data obtained by the Palm Center in a 2007 Freedom of Information Act request. 

But the Pentagon says no waiver exists for participation in extremist organizations.

'Our standards have not changed; participation in extremist activities has never been tolerated and is punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice,' said Eileen Lainez, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

The Pentagon's third directive against white supremacists was issued in 2009 after a Department of Homeland Security report expressed concern that right-wing extremists were recruiting veterans returning from wars overseas.

Bombers: Oklahoma City bombing conspirators Terry Nichols, left, and Timothy McVeigh, right, served in the U.S. Army prior to the terrorist act

The Pentagon's 2009 instruction, updated in February 2012, directs commanders to remain alert for signs of racist activity and to intervene when they see it. It bans soldiers from blogging or chatting on racist websites while on duty.

'This is the best we've ever seen,' said Heidi Beirich, leader of the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence project, referring to the Pentagon's attitute. 'It was really disheartening under the Bush administration how lightly they took it, so this is a major advance.'

Her group monitors online chatter among self-described active-duty warriors serving overseas and reports it to military officials. It also receives regular calls from military investigators asking about racists in the service.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), another civil rights monitor, have helped train officers on how to spot extremists, although Mark Pitcavage, director of investigative research at the ADL, says the military lacks comprehensive training for recruiters and commanders.

He called the military's reaction when alerted to white supremacists 'patchy.'

'We've discovered a great range of response, from getting a phone call the next day saying, 'He's already out,' to not doing anything at all,' Pitcavage said.

THE TATTOO MATRIX

The Army showed Reuters a one-hour presentation it says was designed to educate soldiers and Army leaders about its extremism policy and how to respond, including to white supremacy groups. 

Penalties for extremist ideology may include being removed from the military, having security clearances yanked or being demoted.

'The standard hateful message has not been replaced, just packaged differently with issues like freedom of speech, anti-gun control themes, tax reform and oppression,' the presentation says, noting that recruitment may be difficult to detect, occurring quietly 'in bars and break areas' on bases.

The presentation instructs Army leaders to look out for tattooed symbols of lightning bolts, skulls, swastikas, eagles and Nordic warriors. 

Skinheads may have tattoos showing barbed wire, hobnailed boots and hammers.

In a detailed flowchart called a 'Tattoo Decision Support Matrix,' Army leaders are shown how to respond to various tattoos.

At the time of publication, the Army was unable to identify the locations where this course was being taught.

SCREENING OUT ROGUES

'We're very strict on the tattoo policy here within this recruiting station,' said Sergeant Aaron Iskenderian, head of the Army recruiting office in Fayetteville, the Army town next to Fort Bragg.

With the United States withdrawn from Iraq, winding down from Afghanistan and unemployment stuck above 8 per cent, recruiters can be choosy again.

Iskenderian cited the example of a young man who came in recently with a tattoo of the Confederate flag.

'We're in the South here. It's considered Southern heritage. It's on the General Lee,' Iskenderian said, referring to the car from the television show The Dukes of Hazzard.

'"Is it racist?" I asked him, "What does it mean to you?" and he said, "Southern pride."

Flag flap: While an image or tattoo of a Confederate flag may raise alarms, some see it as a symbol of 'southern pride'

The potential recruit also told Iskenderian he had a black girlfriend. Iskenderian sent the issue up the chain of command, and the young man was rejected.

Academics who study white supremacists say proponents of the 'infiltration strategy' of joining the U.S. military have adapted, telling skinheads to deceive military recruiters by letting their hair grow, avoiding or covering tattoos, and suppressing their racist views.

'You have to differentiate between some of the grandiose fantasies of some of the leaders of the movement and what actually is going on,' cautioned the ADL's Pitcavage.

For neo-Nazis who get past the screeners, as with the gang members, the military needs a comprehensive strategy, said Carter F. Smith, a former military investigator who is now a professor of criminal justice at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee.

'They are some of the most disciplined soldiers we have. They really want to learn to shoot those weapons,' Smith said. 'The problem wasn't just that we were opening the floodgates to let them in. We let them out after prosecution or when their time was up and we didn't let the police know.'

Via: "The Daily Mail"

Hijacking The Constitution & The Bill Of Rights

By Jacob G. Hornberger
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Courtesy Of The Future Of Freedom Foundation

In an editorial yesterday entitled “Obama Administration Owes Answers on How It Handled Times Square Suspect,” the Washington Post wants to know whether the Obama administration was too hasty in treating accused Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad as a criminal suspect rather than an “enemy combatant.”

The Post stated:

“The administration rightly came under fire for its handling of the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen who tried to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day. In that case, the Justice Department … rashly embraced a law enforcement approach without fully considering other options, including holding Mr. Abdullmutallab as an enemy combatant.” (Emphasis added.)

The Post goes on to say:

“The Shahzad case is different, primarily because Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen.”

The Post’s editorial exemplifies how corrupt America’s federal criminal- justice system has become as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

We begin with a fundamental principle, one that even the Post implicitly acknowledges: Terrorism is, in fact, a federal criminal offense. Let me repeat that: Terrorism is a crime under U.S. law.

Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that suspected terrorists have always been subject to the rules, guarantees, and protections that relate to the federal criminal-justice system. Grand-jury indictments, jury trials in federal court, criminal-defense attorneys, the presumption of innocence, the exclusion of incompetent and irrelevant evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to remain silent, the right to call favorable witnesses, and so forth.

So, what does the Post mean when it wonders whether the Obama administration should have considered treating Shahzad as an “enemy combatant” instead of as a criminal defendant?

The Post is referring to the alternative, competing system of criminal justice that the Pentagon established in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It’s a system that is totally unlike the federal court system. Yes, there are still criminal prosecutions for terrorism, but in the Pentagon’s system the defendant is treated in an entirely different way.

The Pentagon’s system, for example, encompasses the power to waterboard and otherwise torture people who the feds suspect are guilty of terrorism. The defendant is presumed guilty and treated as such. There is no right to a speedy trial, and defendants can be held forever without a trial. If a trial is ultimately held, the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by a kangaroo tribunal consisting of military officials, not by regular Americans from the community. At the trial, evidence acquired by torture can be admitted against the accused. The defendant does not have an absolute right to cross examine witnesses, and hearsay evidence can be admitted against him.

In other words, ever since 9/11 the United States has had two separate and distinct competing criminal-justice systems, one that is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the other that is governed by brutal, arbitrary, and ad hoc procedures, ones which, by the way, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to prohibit.

Obviously, it makes a world of difference which system a person is subjected to. As the Post editorial implies, that decision — which system to employ against a person accused of terrorism — is entirely arbitrary and ad hoc. Federal officials have absolute and total discretion to make the call. There are no set standards.

Let’s assume that Shahzad did, in fact, try to set off the Times Square bomb and that he did it with the active participation of a partner. Under America’s post-9/11 criminal justice system, the feds could treat one of the partners as a criminal defendant and the other one as an enemy combatant, notwithstanding the fact that they allegedly committed the same act.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a violation of equal treatment under law and the rule of law than that. When the life and liberty of people turns on the discretionary judgments of government officials as to whether criminal defendants should be accorded due process of law or kangaroo courts, that’s not a system founded on justice but rather a system that makes a mockery of justice.

Where did the feds acquire this omnipotent post-9/11 power to completely circumvent the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in federal criminal prosecutions through the arbitrary, discretionary, and ad hoc power to label people accused of terrorism as either criminal defendants or as enemy combatants?

They made it up. Out of whole cloth. They knew that terrorism is a federal criminal. They knew that terrorism is listed in the U.S. Code as a federal criminal offense. They knew that accused terrorists, including Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, had always been prosecuted as criminal defendants in U.S. District Court.

But they also knew that the fear-laden crisis of 9/11 gave them an opportunity, the opportunity to make up an entirely new and false doctrine, one that they claimed now entitled them to call a federal crime either a crime or an act of war, one that enabled them to completely circumvent the procedural protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That’s what they did with the federal crime of terrorism. They didn’t repeal the U.S. Code provisions on terrorism. Those still remain on the books, which is why many suspected terrorists are still prosecuted in federal court. What they did was say, “We now have another option — the option to treat accused terrorists as enemy combatants instead of criminal defendants. We now wield the total and absolute power make that call.”

The Post is being disingenuous when it states that “the Shahzad case is different because Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen.”

Different in what respect? Is the Post suggesting that there should be one form of criminal justice system — the constitutional one — for Americans and another form for foreigners — the military system? Never mind that such a dual criminal justice system flies in the face of more than two centuries of U.S. history, one in which all persons, not just Americans, accused of federal crimes are entitled to the same criminal-justice system and to the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Moreover, Americans had best get used to the fact that the feds now possess the power to treat American citizens as enemy combatants. That’s what the Jose Padilla case was all about. In other words, what they did to Padilla when they were treating him as an enemy combatant — indefinite incarceration, torture through sensory deprivation and isolation, denial of due process, presumption of guilt, and the like — they now can do to all Americans.

And this revolutionary transformation of criminal justice, one in which the military now wields omnipotent power over the citizenry, was effected without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. It’s just another part and parcel of America’s war on terrorism and the U.S. government’s foreign policy of empire and intervention. Not only are the American people being economically bankrupted by that war and that foreign policy, they’re also having their Constitution and Bill of Rights hijacked and circumvented.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

Hornberger’s Blog Archives