It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

This is the story of an America citizen, a mother of three, a doctor, a neuroscientist, educated at MIT and Brandeis University. During the Bush regime with all the civil liberties out the window, she was arrested in Afghanistan with her three children - two of whom are still missing. She was secretly held for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan, beaten tortured, raped, and shot twice in the stomach.

We need to read this story and spread this story, if we care about any civil liberties.

Written by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

 

It Is Now Official:
The U.S. Is A Police State

By Paul Craig Roberts

February 09, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for “terrorists.” Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.

The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.

As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.

As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui an American citizen of Pakistani origin might have been the first.

Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children were with her at the time she was abducted, one an eight-month old baby. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm  An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier’s rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier’s excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On February 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range. No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: “The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers.”

An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of “justice” that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.

The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.

Anyone can be next. Indeed, on February 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now “defined policy” that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.

I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home--Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.

Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair’s “defined policy” is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver’s wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver’s fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him, The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.

In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a “threat.”

What defines “threat”? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a “threat.”

Ironic, isn’t it, that “the war on terror” to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens who it regards as a threat.

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24634.htm

DaytonMegan's picture
DaytonMegan
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2010
Posts: 49
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

Thanks for posting this John.  I've been following Dr. Siddiqui's case for a while now.  Where did you find this oped?  I never figured we'd hear about this case in any MSM/"respectible paper".  I've been told that a few "independent media outlets" like Democracy Now have covered this story.

Last I heard the good doctor is now pretty much mentally broken (crazy) from her ordeal and not really coherent enough to explain her side of the story.  Its really very, very sad. 

I guess America has two Gulags -- one at Gitmo and the other Afghanistan.

The good news is we've all been fairly warned.  We should have no more illusions about "our great government wouldn't do that" -- we have civil liberties.  The US government won't pretend any more that it doesn't "disappear" or murder citizens.  They are now open about it.  All they have to do to strip you of all Constitutional rights is declare you a "threat" or a "terrorist."

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 855
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

Several sites carry Mr. Robert's writings.  This one is at Lew Rockwell and may be at others.

I think the average Joe on the street will still look at you sideways if you relate this story.  Sad.  If you mention anything about "enemy combatants" or terroristic threats you will likely get the response that of course we should do whatever it takes to get those people put away.

Hail the state and pass the remote.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 855
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

double post

 

rickets's picture
rickets
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 238
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

I dont have any other knowledge of this case other than what you posted above, but it seems there was a jury that convicted her?  That seems to create a bit of a credibility problem with this opinion piece.  The author says the jury was filled with bigots....based on what?

Our judicial system surely has faults, and surely has convicted many innocent people over the decades.  However, by and large it works and works dang well relative to most of the world.  If there was no trial, no jury, I could get behind the author more.  But, as there was a trial and jury I think the author has to come up with way more than calling that jury bigoted before I start believing his claims.  I find it hard to believe that a jury would see only the evidence the author states and carry on the way they did.  This does not pass the smell test.

Further, Americans that put themselves in countries that the State Department says to stay the hell away from put themselves at risks not faced at home.  When one of those countries is a war zone, then the risk is far greater and you have to be willing to pay the consequences of pushing the boundries of what is rational.  Why the hell were they there?  Why not stay in America? 

While the details and answers to my questions might support this authors claim, he certainly doesnt earn my trust with this article standing alone.

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

I suggest researching Jose Padilla as well. He was held as an enemy combatant and was in all likelihood " Kubarked" . This is the CIA 's method of psychologically breaking prisoners. It is based on Ewen Cameron's work. Dr. Siddiqui seems to be displaying the same psychological symptoms as many political prisoners including Padilla

Padilla is a U.S citizen who was denied his Constitutional rights. He is now serving 17 years. Paul Craig Roberts has written about him as well.

Rickets

Being an American citizen we are free to travel wherever we choose and by the way Padilla was

arrested in the war zone of America. You know, the war on terror, the perpetual war without boundaries

V

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

Daytonmegan asked,

I've been following Dr. Siddiqui's case for a while now.  Where did you find this oped?  I never figured we'd hear about this case in any MSM/"respectible paper".  I've been told that a few "independent media outlets" like Democracy Now have covered this story.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Rickets said,

I dont have any other knowledge of this case other than what you posted above, but it seems there was a jury that convicted her?  That seems to create a bit of a credibility problem with this opinion piece.  The author says the jury was filled with bigots....based on what?

Rickets, am trying to learn more about the trial, but here's a comment from the orginal article which refers to British politicians and concerns around the trial. If and when I find out more, will make a post on this thread. J

insyros
This piece is not completely off subject and I post it in an effort to keep Aafia and her ordeal in in our minds.  
 
British Parliamentarians for public inquiry into Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s conviction....  
 
Describing the conviction of Pakistani neuroscientist Dr.Aafia Siddiqui as “miscarriage of justice”, British Parliamentarians have called for withdrawal of case against her and repatriation to Pakistan. At a function organised at the House of Lords on Tuesday evening to raise support for the incarcerated Dr. Siddiqui, Lord Nazir Ahmed together with other speakers said her trial in New York was full of flaws and not based on facts.  
They sought the intervention of the US leadership and demanded a fair trial based on real facts and not assumptions. Lord Ahmed said he would be writing a letter to the US President Barack Obama carrying signatures of other British MPs calling for Dr.Siddiqui’s repatriation to Pakistan and withdrawal of case.  
The Labour Peer further said he would also raise this question in the Parliament to ascertain how the British Government could help in this regard.  
According to Lord Nazir, the conviction of Dr.Siddiqui has been received with great dismay in Pakistan which would further fuel anti-American feeling in the south Asian country.  
“If US wants to create a good impression of itself in Pakistan, it should release Dr.Siddiqui and send her back to Pakistan,” he asserted.  
He said no credible independent evidence was presented at the New York court and in the words of defence lawyers the decision of the jury was based on fear rather than facts.  
Lord Altaf Sheikh, MP Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Saghir, a representative of Caged Prisoners which represent the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Rabia Zia of UK Chapter of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, journalist Yvonne Ridley, who witnessed the trial and Barrister Abid Hussain also spoke on the occasion.  
The thrust of their speeches was to mobilise public opinion against Dr.Siddiqui’s conviction and call on Pakistani authorities to demand her repatriation as well making efforts to find the whereabouts of her two missing children.  
Sarwar said Pakistani authorities must hold inquiry at their end to know the circumstances of her disappearance from Karachi in 2003 and her appearance in Kabul five years later.  
Ridley said it was now up to the people of Pakistan to organise regular rallies in support of Dr.Siddiqui and send strong message of their resentment to the USA on this trial.  
Barrister Abid Hussain urged the British Pakistanis to lobby their respective MPs and sign on-line petition in support of the neuroscientist for exerting maximum pressure on the US Government.

Yesterday, 4:15:49 PM
address of 'comment':
Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.
V wrote:

I suggest researching Jose Padilla as well. He was held as an enemy combatant and was in all likelihood " Kubarked" . This is the CIA 's method of psychologically breaking prisoners. It is based on Ewen Cameron's work. Dr. Siddiqui seems to be displaying the same psychological symptoms as many political prisoners including Padilla

Padilla is a U.S citizen who was denied his Constitutional rights. He is now serving 17 years. Paul Craig Roberts has written about him as well.

Rickets

Being an American citizen we are free to travel wherever we choose and by the way Padilla was

arrested in the war zone of America. You know, the war on terror, the perpetual war without boundaries

V

Yeah but they were both MUSLIM. 

If that's good enough for the intel community and the military then it ought to be good enough for us. /sarcasm

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

My issue with that editorial is with the Aafia Siddiqui case, specifically that it states as fact things for which we have no substantial evidence.  Is there any good evidence she was held at Bagram for those five years, or subjected to the tortures described?  From looking at other sources, it seems that the primary evidence of this is her own conflicting explanations and suspicions by human-rights organizations.  Now is it possible that the incarceration and torture DID happen?  Absolutely.  But this is insufficient evidence to make the claim that it's a fact, and stating it as a fact weakens the author's main argument.  Which I find disappointing because it's an argument I'm actually in general agreement with.

But lack of evidence cuts both ways, and it also seems that the evidence used against her in her trial was almost as shaky and insufficient as her claim of a five year Bagram incarceration.  It's just my opinion, but I'm hesitant to accept the word of the Pakistani local police who arrested her that she actually was carrying the suspicious information they claim they found on her, and the inconsistencies and lack of forensic evidence regarding her attempted shooting make that questionable as well.  Again, it's all certainly possible but the evidence is shaky, which leads me to believe there is more to this than meets the eye.  So the author is at least possibly correct in that we may have a miscarriage of justice here, though I think that his claim that bigotry was definitely behind it is clearly jumping to conclusions and weakens his argument further.

Maybe Aafia Siddiqui was working with Al Qaeda and is in fact a real nasty character (her small size has nothing to do with capability or intent to kill), or maybe she was detained and tortured by the US.  Maybe both are true.  But I want more convincing evidence than suspicions by the FBI and testimony from interrogations of prisoners, or suspicions by human-rights groups and her own conflicting testimony.  Both of these are calls for further investigation, not proof.

- Nickbert

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: It is now offical: The U.S.A. is a police-state.

 

Although I too have my doubts about a story that if true would be such a flagrant miscarriage of justice, my doubts are tempered by the treatment of Ramos and Compeon, the two Border Patrol agents who were railroaded by the US (In)Justice Dept. They were also US citizens as well as Federal employees and they were persecuted here in America, sacrificed on the alter of political correctness. If it could happen here to them, it could happen there to her (Siddiqui). Or any one of us. Muslim or not.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Philly Police Harass, Threaten to Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments