XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america, alt.conspira   
   y.america-at-war   
   XPost: us.politics   
   From: oO@oO.com   
      
   Secret Wars, Secret Laws, Secret Warrants, Secret Courts, & Secret Prisons:   
   The New America?   
      
   "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary   
   Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin,   
   Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755   
      
   It seems that, since 9/11, the Bush Administration has created laws and/or   
   regulations to which the government says they may subject you, which at the   
   same time they don't need to prove to you the existence of, or even show to   
   the courts. This has come to light in the case of Gilmore v. Gonzalez   
   (formerly, Gilmore v. Ashcroft), where the Government refused to show: an   
   airline passenger, his defense attorney, or even a trial court, the   
   regulation that required him to show identification. In other words, you   
   could be held responsible for violating a secret law or regulation.   
      
   Secret laws..? 'How do I know if I might break one?' 'Oh, the police or   
   other authorities tell me that there is such a law.' When I ask to see it,   
   they say, "nope, it's secret"... If the government refuses to admit that a   
   law exists, but reminds someone of some other non-secret public law, in a   
   way or at a time that they know will likely lead that person to take actions   
   that violate a secret law, that person is unaware of, how does one defend   
   oneself? If the police lie to me during interrogation, as the Supreme Court   
   says they may (see the section: Deceiving the Suspect), and cites a phony   
   secret law to get me to confess to what I may believe is a lesser crime than   
   is some secret law they say exists, what does that say about justice?   
      
   There goes the concept of notice (one example is the requirement of   
   publishing a law before holding people to it) the courts have developed from   
   the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and from the Fourth Amendment's   
   implicit expectations of due process.. What happens if I violate a secret   
   law that no-one could have known about UNTIL they actually violated it, if   
   no officer told them they were about to violate it, for example?   
      
   Can you say "Spanish Inquisition?" (I only WISH this were simply a Monty   
   Python skit instead of reality)   
      
   In the post 9/11 world, the US Government has created: secret warrants,   
   secret subpoenas, secret courts & secret trials (reminiscent of the Star   
   Chamber abolished by England in 1641), and secret jails. They've also tried   
   to prevent access to attorneys to people that they hold prisoner (See also:   
   US asks Judge to Deny Suspect Access to Lawyer).   
      
   The government has not won all these cases (See also: Judge tosses Detroit   
   terror cases), so much for the idea that they would only use these   
   mechanisms, procedures, and institutions against the assuredly guilty and   
   the most dangerous of criminals. People have been held for years and been   
   apologized to by judges in cases where supposed terrorists were found   
   innocent. Now we need secret laws too? Is this justice? When do we stop   
   being a truly democratic nation?   
      
   Does our Constitution no longer mean anything? Or is it simply what some   
   Republican Congresspeople reportedly heard George W. Bush call it recently?   
   "Simply a goddamn piece of paper?" (See also: Where There's Smoke... ).   
      
   The most basic provision of any JUST and civilized society is that the   
   members of that society must be able to KNOW what the rules are and verify   
   them. When the laws are secret, how does one do that? It sounds like "Double   
   Secret Probation" from Animal House, or, on a more sinister note, The Trial   
   by Franz Kafka.   
      
   Let me be clear, I have less problems than does Mr. Gilmore with the   
   government making someone show ID to allow them to fly on an airliner. I   
   find that a reasonable request given security concerns. I DO, though, have a   
   HUGE problem with ANY government saying they have secret regulations that   
   mandate something that the public is expected to adhere to, and that they   
   then tell the very same public that they, for whatever reason, cannot be   
   allowed to even see those regulations. In my mind, there is no logical   
   reason not to simply establish a public rule/law to accomplish the goal of   
   requiring one to show identification to take a commercial airline flight.   
   That is, of course, unless one is PURPOSELY trying to set a precedent   
   allowing the government to establish secret laws for the violation of which   
   a citizen might: lose some right to liberty/property, be detained, fined,   
   arrested, or even jailed. That's a VERY scary prospect.   
      
   Thomas Jefferson told us that: "Free government is founded in jealousy, not   
   confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited   
   constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In   
   questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but   
   bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."   
      
   As recognized by the Founding Fathers, in the Sixth Amendment, a public   
   system of justice is one of the most axiomatic guarantees of our rights and   
   freedoms. Limitations on secretive "justice" are a Constitutional constraint   
   intended to ensure that government itself is just. A secret system of   
   justice is simply unjust and inconsistent with any conceptualization of a   
   free society.   
      
   But, perhaps the words of Jefferson are considered too distant, from a   
   simpler time, and out of date? Therefore, I ask you to also consider the   
   words of a more recent President, speaking amidst the dangers of the Cold   
   War, who said: "You and I are told we must choose between a left or right,   
   but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is o­nly an   
   up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom   
   consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.   
   Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would   
   sacrifice freedom for security have embarked o­n this downward path... ..The   
   American people recognize that it is the denial of human rights, not their   
   advocacy, that is the source of world tension." A Time for Choosing, Ronald   
   Reagan   
      
   Have we already forsaken and forgotten all we once believed in and stood   
   for? Have we covered and shuttered the beacon that once shone from this   
   lighthouse for liberty and the rights of all humankind?   
      
   Yes, we are engaged in a war of sorts with those who would destroy the   
   societies we cherish, but have there not always been those who would do so?   
   Yes, we are right and just to defend our societies, but we must also temper   
   that defense with the knowledge that, as Thomas Paine put it: "The greatest   
   tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)