NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN





            When Tyranny is Law, Revolution is Order



            By abid Ullah Jan

            08/21/05 "ICH" -- -- The US introduced Patriot Acts and violated 
all international laws after 9/11 to fight "terrorism." After 7/7, the 
British government went one step further to the extreme to fight 
 "extremism." It proposed many laws, contravening the established legal 
principles, human rights and all norms of moral decency.

            The stress on the need for more and more laws gives us the 
impression as if it was the lack of laws that lead to "terrorism" in the 
first place.

            These developments in the US and UK led to similar initiatives 
and debate in other Western capitals on whether to follow the suit. Puppet 
regimes in the Muslim world don't even need such discussions about terror 
and law. Thanks to the unflinching, fully determined support of the Western 
leaders and the terrorist attacks abroad, which are good enough for the 
dictators to round up, torture and even kill hundreds of people without any 
reference to any law.

            Because of 9/11 and 7/7, the legislatures now see a problem and 
attempt to solve it with new laws along with permitting the war lords to 
invade and occupy sovereign states on the basis of lies. The question is: 
would these laws and occupations address the root causes of the problem?

            Even a cursory analysis reveals that the main target of the 
proposed terror laws is the basic principles that ensure justice and 
fairness. Principles such as "due process," "no crime without intent," 
"innocent until proven guilty," "habeas corpus," "no self-incrimination," 
"no ex post facto laws," "the right to counsel," "the right to remain 
silent," "the right to see the evidence that incriminates" and "the right to 
confront one's accusers" are the first victims of these laws. These 
principles are the target because without doing away with them, acts such as 
racial profiling would be impossible and without that, singling out Muslims 
would not be easily legitimized in the public eyes.

            The most basic understanding of law is that it provides the 
people with their most important safeguard against "predatory actions of 
government." The understanding has been turned upside down. The purpose of 
law, "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," has now been changed 
to the greatest happiness of the totalitarians, who want to silence their 
critics in the name of "greatest safety and security."

            The world needs not be deceived with the concept of terrorism 
used an excuse to consolidate tyranny at home and abroad after 9/11. Efforts 
were already underway in the US for controlling public opinion and 
curtailing freedoms. Roberts and Stratton argue in their book, "The Tyranny 
of Good Intentions," that in "recent decades, both conservatives and 
liberals have cut swaths through the law as they pursued drug dealers, S&L 
crooks, environmental polluters, Wall Street inside traders, child abusers, 
and other undesirables." In fact, "with the exception of Benthamite 
ideology, the greatest damage to justice has been done by the unintended 
consequences of the conservatives' war on crime." The war on terrorism 
became the perfect excuse for consolidating what was already on the cards.

            UK is now moving one step ahead with Blair's plan to criminalize 
not just direct incitement to terrorism but anything the totalitarians may 
categorize as "condoning," "glorifying" or "justifying" terrorism anywhere 
in the world. Words like that are far too vague, elastic and subject to 
selective use by the world mastering demi-gods. Worse still is the 
government's plan to expand its list of deportable offenses to include the 
expression of "what the government considers to be extreme views." The idea 
of making naturalized British citizens deportable for "extremism" means one 
has to believe and fully support every single word and deed of the 
government; otherwise the person will be considered an extremist, whose 
difference of opinion might "indirectly" lead to terrorism.

            All these measures are based on the pre-determination that what 
the US and UK and their allies have done over the last many decades is 
absolutely correct. Only there was a lack of the proposed new laws. They 
didn't violate any international law and norm. They didn't assist tyrants 
and aggressors. They didn't support occupations and tortures of innocent 
populations. They didn't starve 1.8 millions to death. They did not fully 
legalized state terrorism. And they didn't disregard any international law 
and even bypassed the UN after 9/11.

            What is value of the terror-laws, when those formulating the 
laws are above the law and able to make a mockery of the Geneva Convention. 
What is value of terror laws from those, whose Office of Legal Council 
(under Justice Department), determines that the Geneva Conventions legally 
do not apply to the vague "war on terrorism." The famous Gonzales' memo says 
that the terrorist threat rendered ''obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on 
questioning of enemy prisoners,'' who are not even granted POW status.

            Most importantly, the proposed changes in the existing laws and 
the new laws for terrorism are not at all about terrorism as such. They are 
mostly for harassing Muslims (Colbert King, Washington Post, 20-08-2005),[1] 
to hold them from practicing Islam and change their school curriculum (Paul 
Watson, LA Times, 18-08-2005)[2]  and their way of life altogether.[3] For 
non-Muslims these laws are meant to silent all critics of the illegal wars 
and occupations. These are the new targets of the proposed laws, which were 
so obvious from the beginning of the war on Islam under the label of war on 
terrorism.

            As far terrorism is concerned, the US doesn't have a legal 
definition of terrorism in the first place. There is no organized body of 
legislation one might call the law of terrorism, and there is no inherent 
crime of terrorism. Terrorists are charged with other offenses.  There is a 
long-standing legal code called Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 
which is entitled "Terrorism" and attempts to define it, but it is 
essentially all about international terrorism and represents America's 
version of outlawing internecine conflict on its soil.

            Ninety percent of the time, suspected terrorists do nothing 
wrong until they commit an indictable act.  Indicted terrorists are charged 
with other crimes -- planning for violence, raising funds illegally, and 
carrying out a violent act.  The most common criminal charges against 
terrorists include bombing, arson, hijacking, assault, kidnapping, murder, 
theft, and sabotage.  For terrorists who are captured before completing an 
act, the most common charges are illegal possession of explosives and 
weapons, illegal raising of funds, and conspiracy.  All the new additions 
are only and only concerned with racial profiling and justifications for 
discrimination against the particular group: Muslims.

            According to the proposed terror laws, the right to freedom of 
speech only applies to discussion or explanations of doctrines or ideologies 
that urge the overthrow of government declared evil by the United States. 
Speech that urge overthrow of the most favored, pro-West dictators and kings 
is not protected.



            To qualify as an indictable enemy of the West, a person must not 
necessarily take some concrete steps toward harmful action. Merely criticism 
of the policy of the US and UK in particular is good enough. Most of the 
intelligence agents and other security officials consider themselves as one 
with the US and one does not necessarily condemn the rest of the Western 
countries directly. Mere criticism of the US and UK is good enough to charge 
someone under the twisted definition of extremism.



            The most absurd new laws put the burden of proof on the alleged 
"terrorists" and "extremists." They have to prove it in a situation, in 
which they are indefinitely detained, have no right to know the charges 
against them and have absolutely no access to evidence of their alleged 
crime. Yet they have to prove themselves innocent from their cold, 
claustrophobic prison cells.



            States can effectively violate all international laws and 
treaties and kill as many people as they may like for achieving their ever 
changing objectives according to the gradual exposure of their lies. 
Powerful states are no longer bound by any law. However, when it comes to 
dealing with the perceived terrorists, states are allowed to pass 
anti-terrorism laws which are extensions of international treaties to 
consider whole populations as potential terrorists.



            Immigrants or students can be deported for their alleged 
engagement in "suspicious" activities, where evidence supporting such claims 
is presented in secret, or not presented at all. It shows, there might be no 
evidence at all. But mere suspicion is good enough to treat any one (read 
Muslims) the way any allied government may like.



            According to the new laws, states can be providing billions of 
dollars and full military support annually to the regimes involved in 
oppression, occupation and terrorizing millions of people. Yet, any moral or 
financial support to the oppressed, resisting these illegal occupations 
would be instantly labeled as terrorist fund raising.

            These measures must be "laws" and legislation for those who 
propose mass deportations of Muslims in the New York Times. But for those 
who may not even have a lion's share of commonsense, these steps are 
reflective of the pervasive tyranny. How can one justify indefinite 
detention of a person on the basis of mere suspicion, without any right to 
see the evidence or due process of law?

            Washington Post's reporter Dana Priest reported on January 02, 
2005 that  US administration is "preparing long-range plans for indefinitely 
imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn 
over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to 
intelligence," (See full report: Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects). 
Even mass murderers are not be punished like that, let alone mere suspects.

            Tyranny is too mild a world for such life time detentions in 
violation to all the legal principles and processes known to human beings so 
far. In this drama of law and terror, it seems that justice, fairness or law 
is not the objective at all. Dana Priest reports that the CIA "has been 
scurrying since Sept. 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it 
could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without 
having to give them access to legal proceedings." According to the report, 
the suspect held in these facilities include high profile terrorist in 
Washington's view: " Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida 
and the lead Southeast Asia terrorist, Nurjaman Riduan Isamuddin, known as 
Hambali." It shows the leading terrorists are kept away even even from the 
shadows of law. So, for whom do we need all these new laws?

            These so-called laws are for the ordinary citizens to make them 
toe the line, to stop questioning the official stories about the terrorist 
acts, the logic and reason for going to wars and all associated policies. 
Andrew M. Greeley, a Roman Catholic priest, equated such measures to a 
"whiff of fascism American style in the air" (Daily Southtown, Chicago, 
November 25, 2001). He wrote it long before the real face of the new laws 
regarding terrorism was exposed. Mr. Greeley concluded: "The closet fascists 
among us, however well-intentioned they may be, are far more serious threats 
to us than the followers of bin Laden. They would, given half a chance, 
destroy the American soul."

            The bottom-line is that law has become a mean in the post 9/11 
world to consummate and exercise tyranny. That is not fault of the law. It 
is fault of the law-makers and practitioners who are exploiting the law by 
hiding behind it for justifying their crimes against humanity.

            Abid Ullah Jan  is author of The End of 
Democracy and A War on Islam. His book, challenging legitimacy of Afghan 
occupation will be released soon.


            Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------

            [1] See, for example, Colbert I. King's article, "Muslim 
Converts, Meet the FBI," in Washington Post, August 20, 2005.
            [2] See The Nation Pakistan, August 20, 2005, lead story: "US 
concerned over 'inciteful' material in Pak textbooks," or Paul Watson's 
front page story on the same subject in LA Times, August 18, 2005.
            [3] See Blair's statement that if Muslims have to live in UK, 
they have to live by our values and way of life.
            Translate this page

            (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material 
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator 
of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by 
the originator.)




      Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest
                  Fill out your emailaddress
                  to receive our newsletter!

                   SubscribeUnsubscribe
                  Powered by YourMailinglistProvider.com
           Information Clearing House

            Daily News Headlines Digest


      HOME

      COPYRIGHT NOTICE



Item Ends.

http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com

Queen Elizabeth II- an integral part of the massive Judicial Oath of 
Fairness fraud which all UK judges and magistrates swear only to her and not 
the UK public. The Judicial Oath fraud amounts to tyranny against the UK 
public being carried on by Queen Elizabeth II..

Tony Blair-33 (or more) degree Freemason

Queen Elizabeth II- Patron Head of the Secret Society of UK Freemasonry

Prince of Wales-also now a Freemason

Duke of Edinburgh-Freemason

Duke of Kent-Queen Elizabeth's cousin- Grand Master of the UK Secret Society 
of Freemasonry.

All UK Members of Parliament swear their Oath of Allegiance only to Queen 
Elizabeth II but not to the UK public who both elect and pay their  wages.

Is it likely that any Member of Parliament will ask questions in Parliament 
about Queen Elizabeth II's integral part in the  Judicial Oath fraud and how 
she has been able to become one of the richest women in the world when their 
allegiance is only to Queen Elizabeth II and not to the UK public?

The massive wealth which Queen Elizabeth II holds was not just spirited out 
of thin air. It has mainly been leached from the pockets of the people of 
the UK nation. Should Queen Elizabeth II be allowed and be assisted in 
becoming the multi-billionaire that she now is?

The Royal Prerogative ( Monarchy alleges under this that it is immune from 
criminal matters) is being used to protect the large number of establishment 
criminals now sheltering and being protected under it

The Royal Prerogative is being used to protect the Northumbria Police 
Special Squad officers who made two attempts to murder me at my home early 
February 2003 where  along with very bent members of the judiciary they also 
assisted with the theft of it.

Where the Royal Prerogative is protecting establishment criminals or even 
the Royal Prerogative itself is being used to protect any crime which in 
fact is what its doing, this is a violation of the 1948 U.N. Declaration of 
Human Rights and also of the European Human Rights Convention.

In the circumstances Queen Elizabeth II is unfit to be the UK Monarch.

I contributed to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry 
into Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary in 1996. The outcome of 
that Inquiry amouted to a criminal deception of the truth.

The not so United Kingdom is not a democracy. The more correct description 
of it is hypocrisy as facts show and prove.

Until the Judicial Oath along with the Oath of Allegiance that UK Members of 
Parliament swear only to the Queen of Frauds, are sworn to the people of the 
UK nation then the British hypocrisy (not democracy) will remain. Move into 
the 21st century with our country as a democracy.



http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com



Maurice Kellett