Victims of the State: The Truth, Due Process, and Peaceful People

(This is a compilation from recent blog posts.)

May 14, 2011

Well, the conservatives and warmongers’ moral relativism has come out in broad daylight once again, in their proudly exhibiting their ignorance of due process, and of why all human beings accused of something have a right to due process, and in the conservatives and warmongers’ love of torture. Of course, when the government they have so lovingly supported starts to use those very barbaric investigative procedures against them, they will change their minds about it. (Is that what it would take?)

There have been so many inconsistencies by the Obama Administration, and other sources over the past ten years, enough to lead one to conclude that Osama bin Laden actually died already years ago, either from disease or from the Battle of Tora Bora, and, in total 1984 fashion as Paul Craig Roberts describes, it wouldn’t surprise me if the whole scenario of the past week or two is completely made up. The sheeple eat it all up, every bit of it, hook, line and sinker, because they have been more concerned with American Idol and Lindsay Lohan’s latest shoplifting indictments.

But if we assume, just for the sake of argument (because that would have to be the only rational reason for assuming it), that Osama bin Laden really was still alive up until last week, it is extremely difficult for me to understand why the moral relativists of the right would want bin Laden dead out of revenge more than they would want him alive to give investigators more information, as a means of prosecuting the “war on terrorism,” to prevent further terrorism (even though that’s not what is required to end the terrorism). Don’t the moral relativists of the right ever think before they express their conclusions?

One of the conservative talk show hosts in Boston said yesterday morning that someone would have to be “mentally deficient” to be concerned about “Osama’s human rights.” Now, he was referring to Rosie O’Donnell’s recent concern about Osama not given his due process rights. Of course, Rosie O’Donnell is “mentally deficient,” but that’s not to say she doesn’t have a point.

The moral relativists do not seem to grasp the idea of due process. They seem to think that it would be absurd to think that even bin Laden would have a right to be presumed innocent until someone can actually present actual evidence that proves that bin Laden directed 9/11. Sorry. But when someone is deemed guilty of something because government officials, the president or CIA agents or military generals, said so, at their whim, by their own decree? No, that’s the way of a banana republic, not the way of a society under the rule of law. And yes, even bin Laden has that right of due process.

To look at that issue specifically, we need to be reminded that, as Jacob Hornberger has noted here and here, when the Afghanistan Taliban were harboring bin Laden after 9/11, the Bush Administration demanded that the Taliban release bin Laden to the U.S. The Taliban stated that they would extradite bin Laden to the U.S. if the U.S. government would present evidence of bin Laden’s complicity in 9/11. The Bush Administration refused. Could there be any other reason why the Bush Administration refused to present evidence of bin Laden’s 9/11 complicity than Bush having no evidence? And to this day, there has never been any actual evidence showing that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, except that he publicly approved of it after the fact.

It is unfortunate that the majority amongst the masses prefer to passively believe whatever the government and its media propagandists produce, rather than question or challenge the State’s information and insist on further investigation and valid confirmation of the government’s assertions.

Now, the suggestion that torture was what led to the capture of bin Laden has been shown to not be the case. The chickenhawks just love their vicarious infliction of pain, anguish and suffering on others, the others being people accused of terrorism or being terrorism abettors, even though the majority of the people being tortured in the past ten years were innocent. But, the moral relativists just happen to believe in the philosophy of “guilty by State decree until proven innocent by facts.” When presumption-of-guilt policies of indefinite detention and torture turn around to bite the moral relativists, then maybe then will they get the point.

Here are links to articles regarding the Bush Administration’s knowingly sweeping up innocent individuals at random starting shortly after 9/11, and regarding the majority of Gitmo detainee and torture victims being innocent and uninvolved, and the purpose of the torture to get false confessions or falsely implicate other innocent individuals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-children-old-men

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905l.asp

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantanamo/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/25/112796/wikileaks-just-8-at-gitmo-gave.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/debate-stopper-government-used.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/war-criminals-try-to-evade-prosecution.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/bin-had.html

And Glenn Greenwald writes on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and how any questioning of the official government-press release of the events of the past two weeks is not to be considered, or is even unpatriotic.

Unfortunately, too many people emotionally and unthinkingly believe what the State tells them, the lies, the propaganda, and despite all the crimes of the State time and time again, despite all the goofups and destruction of the State’s own economy and its own people’s liberty and the State’s destruction of the lives, property and liberty of foreigners, just too many people follow along like sheep, and they will crush and destroy anyone who questions or challenges their beloved authorities of the State.

Greenwald brings up Noam Chomsky’s comparison of bin Laden’s (alleged) killing of 3,000 innocent civilians in America with the U.S. government’s killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, that was from the war started by George W. Bush. (That’s from 2003, after the U.S. government’s first campaign of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq throughout the 1990s.)

And Greenwald brings up the Nuremberg Trials, with comments by a Nuremberg Trial prosecutor, who reminds us of the Nuremberg Principles, among them that a war of aggression, that is, starting a war not in self-defense, is a crime.

Especially when George W. Bush starts a war based on lies, fabricated “evidence” and documentation, and propaganda, causes the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers and ruined lives of Americans military families for no good reason, and murders hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and injures thousands more, and literally destroys the entire country (taking up where his dad left off in his destroying of Iraq), THAT is a crime. And to those who have been blindly and emotionally defending all that as well as all the domestic police state crimes begun by the Bush Administration and continued by Obama, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Greenwald quotes the Nuremberg prosecutor: “every leader who is responsible for planning and perpetrating that crime should be held to account in a court of law, and the law applies equally to everyone.”

What ever happened to the idea of moral values in America?

Unfortunately, as we have seen in the government’s increasing of police state security measures following the “death” of bin Laden, government bureaucrats’ primary motivation in anything they do is to increase their level of power and control over others. The real purpose of the TSA’s intrusions, now extending to trains, buses, shopping malls, etc., and other gestapo-like police state policies given to us by ignorant fools like Bush, Obama and Janet Napolitano, is to intimidate the masses, to imprison and rape the citizenry, but one can only hope that more people will begin to fight this crap.

And regarding those Bush-Obama-local government domestic police state abuses, William Grigg has another great post on how the government monopolists in policing have the absolute right to break into your home, by mistake and without cause, and have a right to make wrongful, unlawful arrests and kidnap you and tase and even murder you, and you the mere “mundane” have NO right whatsoever to resist, to defend yourself or to protect your family. The Indiana Supreme Corpse wrote that “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Listen, when you know you have done nothing wrong, and there are intruders at your door and breaking it down and invading your home, you have every right in the world as a human being to defend yourself and your family. Any “official” or government neanderthal bureaucrat who will then punish you for defending yourself against trespassers and violent marauders is an evil, monstrous human being, and shame on these people who are opposed to human rights, and who believe in the officialdom of criminality.

Monopoly in policing has given rise to the Criminal State. It needs to be abolished. We need to end all State-imposed monopoly in America. Anyone and everyone has a God-given right to enter the field of community policing, provide a competitive service in that endeavor, and NO ONE has the right to compel others to patronize a monopolized, State-run, State-controlled government police. When the State compels the citizens of a town or city to only use the one single State-provided, State-monopolized policing service, then that naturally evolves into a compulsion of the people to obey and submit to the “authorities,” and that is what we have now: The State criminals tyrannizing the citizens.

Monopoly is tyranny.