Legal Confusion Being Sown By Liberals Washington Legal Community in Disarray

The idiotic idea that foreigners who attack our forces and installations overseas are somehow entitled to be protected by the United States Constitution is really a stretch of sanity. Non-citizen aliens who are in the United States on visas are entitled to our Constitutional protections as a comity offered by the Executive Branch (Immigration) to visitors. However, there is no excuse other than liberal appeasement for illegal aliens in our country to be given the same constitutional rights as American citizens or legal aliens.

And certainly, people in other lands are not entitled to anything in our Constitution. They have their own laws and their own constitutions.

The mistaken concept that soldiers of the Taliban Regime are:

Not really soldiers under the Geneva Convention is a strange, but a possible conclusion.

That the al Qaida fighters are unlawful combatants is also a strange, but even a more possible conclusion under the Geneva Convention.

But the confusion being sown out of ignorance of or out of deliberate interference with our laws that the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Courts somehow have jurisdiction over those Taliban and/or al Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Clearly, United States Courts have no jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories. Afghanistan is not a territory of the United States. Even the leased U.S. Department of Defense Naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba is not a U.S. Territory, but a lease contract allowing the U.S. Navy to use the base for military purposes. This lease for the base does not even rise to the level of an Embassy, which could be considered U.S. Territory.

Jurisdiction at Camp X-ray clearly lies with the Department of Defense because it houses captured enemy combatants for wartime detention. Neither the Department of Justice nor the U.S. Court system has any jurisdiction whatsoever at this military base in Cuba.

Finally, capturing fighters or soldiers in a foreign land and transporting them to the United States does not miraculously give the Department of Justice and the U.S. Courts jurisdiction over them. Jurisdiction remains with the capturing army and the Department of Defense.

If, as in the John Walker case, a captured enemy soldier turns out to be an American citizen, the matter becomes a little more fuzzy. If a U.S. citizen had been captured in civilian cloths in the United States, but was clearly working for the enemy in time of war, he could be classified as a spy and a traitor and would likely be executed.

If a foreigner were captured in civilian cloths in the United States who was proven to be knowingly working for the enemy in time of war the foreigner would be classified as a spy and would likely be executed. If there were those found to be spies operating in the United States during time of war, those would likely be tried by the Department of Justice and perhaps be executed as spies.

But, if there had been enemy soldiers in the uniform of the enemy country that was at war with the United States when they were captured in the United States, they could not be classified as spies, but the American among them would be tried in U. S. Courts for treason.

However, John Walker was an enemy soldier captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance who was also fighting the Taliban government. The charge of treason in U.S. Courts fails for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the evidence shows that Walker joined with these unsavory Taliban/al Qaida groups well before 9-11 and evidence is scarce that he had any control over such events that later unfolded including the armed combat against United States forces.

Now, under the articles of war, the United States military has jurisdiction over the territory and population it conquers and controls during war and therefore may try enemy soldiers as well as enemy officials for war crimes in the conquered territory or elsewhere under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

The Department of Justice may not be able to try John Walker for treason, but the Department of Defense can and should hold a Military Tribunal to establish the facts that Walker joined and fought in the enemy army that was fighting the United States and that he was aware of the September 11 attack that was unleashed upon America.

That is adequate grounds from stripping the U.S. Citizenship away from John Walker. Such a Tribunal could then refer the case to the Department of Immigration who would strip the U.S. citizenship away from John Walker and then permanently deport him to Afghanistan where he might be tried as a member of al Qaida by Afghanistani Courts. That is the legal way of handling the Walker case.

It is a grave error for the Bush administration to allow the Department of Justice to try Walker for his crimes committed in another country. This establishes the precedence that the U. S. Department of Justice and the U. S. Courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Americans in any country in the world.

We ask the United States how they think the U. S. Courts have jurisdiction over an American, John Walker, captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? There is no argument that the U.S. Military in Afghanistan has jurisdiction over captured enemy troops in Afghanistan as part of the conquering military and thus the U.S. Department of Defense has jurisdiction over Walker, but by what process does this jurisdiction transfer to the Justice Department and/or the U.S. Courts? Do we see evidence of the establishment of the EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES over other countries of the world?

In the case of the British citizens who were captured fighting for the Taliban, those should be turned over to the British Military who was an ally of the United States in the Afghanistani war and they also have battlefield jurisdiction as does our military. If the British request detention of those three British citizens in the U.S. Military Detention camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, then that is another matter. They still would be under the Jurisdiction of the British military.

The question of whether the Taliban fighters should be considered soldiers of a nation or simply unlawful combatants is open to interpretation of the Geneva Convention statutes and world pressure. Either way, they are entitled to humane treatment during detention by the United States which they are receiving and which exceeds the requirements of the Geneva Convention.

Legal provisions exist to allow the International Red Cross to investigate the conditions of detention at Camp X-ray and report this to the international community. This is being done at the present. But, these enemy detainees are not entitled to the rights of the U.S. Constitution under any law or convention.

Instead, the captured and detained enemy fighters and officials should be questioned and those where evidence supports charges of war crimes, the United States Department of Defense should try such by the U.S. Military Tribunals and/ or perhaps by a Nuremberg type Tribunal in the Hague. Again, U.S. Courts have no jurisdiction in such foreign cases during wartime.

As for bleeding heart liberals from other countries as well as here in the United States including various Human Rights groups who are raising the issue that we are not treating the captured Taliban/al Qaida fighters as well as they think we should comes very close (in a time of continuing war against terrorism) to their harboring our enemies, and offering them aid and comfort, a Constitutional definition of treason for those within the United States. And as for such foreign liberals who are espousing this filth against us in favor of these captured enemy troops, why should we not investigate them for harboring and comforting our enemies and perhaps take steps to cut off their funds as we do the al Qaida?


Corporate States and Corporations Society and Government

 Our founding fathers envisioned a government composed of several Colony States wherein each Colony State would mostly govern itself, but where the several Colony States would band together for common defense similar to treaties and alliances between several nations, which is largely what existed under the Articles of Confederation of 1779. Each Colony State had representatives that sat as a body to attempt to gain coordination and cooperation among this Confederation of Colonial States of America.

Realizing several shortcomings in the loose knit association under the Articles of Confederation, these early leaders hammered out a more complete contract of government under the Constitution of 1789 which more firmly established a separate Colony State in Washington, D.C. whose purpose was to effect more coordination among the various independently governed Colony States.

Care was taken, however, to avoid allowing too much power to be centered in Washington at the expense of the freedom and sovereignty of the various States. Each State was allowed to pick two Senators and elect Congressmen in accordance with their enumeration according to census.

These States were therefore Corporate States with the owners being the citizens of such States. A rich man had no more theoretical ownership in the Corporate State than did the poor man. Of course the rich man had more of an opportunity to effect influence upon the officers of the Corporate State than did the poor man. But, then, the rich man had a greater property interest to be concerned about than the poor man, whether gained by inheritance, genius and good management or by hook and crook.

In those days the idea of individuals being granted corporate charters by the Corporate States had not yet developed. Men operated their businesses and estates as sole proprieties, partnerships or trusts. A State chartered corporation is similar to a State granted franchise which are operated and governed independent of the granting State so long as the officers of the corporation abide by State law and regulations within their corporation.

The first corporations appeared in America in the 17th-century, during capitalism’s infancy. At the time, World Power governments (Monarchies) chartered all corporations-that is, it gave them a specific public mission in exchange for the formal right to exist. The Colonies in America were settled by one such corporation, the Massachusetts Bay Company, which King Charles I chartered in 1628 in order to colonize the New World.

In the infancy of the republic, Americans gave little thought to corporations. In 1787, fewer than 40 corporations operated in the United States. These were mostly franchise charters issued to merchants and shippers by the British East India Company. Later some of the Colonies organized non profit corporations for drainage projects, ferries and bridges, etc. for the benefit of the citizenry of their Colony.

In the 18th century, public enlightenment challenged this model of economic organization by putting forward the idea that people need not be subjects in feudal structures but could act as individuals. American revolutionaries, inspired by radical notions of “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” fought for independence not only from the British Crown, but from the corporate bodies it had chartered. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a protest against the British East India Company’s monopoly of Eastern trade and the King’s right to extract unfair taxation.

Thomas Jefferson saw the danger to our Republic of Republics and stated:

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

But, as these chartered corporations, chartered banks included, grew in size and wealth and in citizenship (stockholders) they became political as well as economic powerhouses. This was to some extent a result of the fact that they employed large groups of workers as well as their economic power. The War of Northern Aggression against the Confederate States of America provided great profits for Northern Corporations. Even Abraham Lincoln (Not exactly a favorite of Confederates) saw the danger and said in 1865:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

But the men running the country’s corporations were not sitting idly by during this time. Contests over charters and the chartering process were not abstractions. They were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. Undoubtedly, one of the most severe blows to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886.

The Supreme court ruled in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the U.S. Constitution, sheltered by the Bill of Rights and the l4th Amendment. Corporate power, now virtually unchecked, owned resources, production, commerce, trade, prices, jobs, politicians, judges and the law. Over the next half century, as a United States congressional committee concluded in 1941:

“The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”

An economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ’30s as “corporatism,” was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.”

Fascism” is simply a form of Corporate Government mostly controlled by a number of Chartered Corporations, also termed Corporatism and Capitalism. It is therefore a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations at the expense of the liberty, sovereignty and security of the people under it and for the subjection of the workers therein. Capitalism does not equal Free Enterprise. Fascism stifles Free Enterprise and small businesses and the rights and welfare of the people.

A truly Fascist (Corporatist) government greatly resembles a dictatorship or a monarchy (the Crown) being supported by a group of corporate Lords favored by the Crown and a myriad of chartered corporations franchised by the Crown. The Crown, in the case of the USA is a President and the Knights of the Round Table are the National Security Council.

Fascism does not lend itself well to Democracy (Fascistic Democracy), except as a guise with fake elections between controlled political parties. But, Fascism blends well with Socialism (some State ownership of property and/or partnership with businesses), i.e., a Socialistic Democracy(dictatorship) disguised as a Democracy and perhaps called a Republic. Many nations call themselves “Republics” such as the Communist nation called “The People’s Republic of China”. Of course that does not make them actual republics. China is more of a Dictatorial Socialistic Democracy.

A Fascist Government, (Corporate Control of Government and the laws) is a direct enemy of a Democratic Republic (We the People’s Control of Government subject to the Constitution). The United States today is a Fascistic Government of International (Empire) designs.

Many unsavory Fascist Lords are behind the scene pulling strings of power over the government of the United States. Fascist Governors and Representatives are elected due to corporate financing.

The Republican Party under Lincoln was as it is today, largely made up of supporters of Fascism (Controlled Capitalism). Some of the key Democrats also fall into this camp in spite of their party labels. The harder core of these Corporatists fully support the idea of a New World Order.

The Republican conservative hard liners are more behind the Bush Family goals of establishing an International Fascist Empire with the United States at the helm. The more liberal of these Corporatists prefer a New World Order under the United Nations. Either way, we the people have lost our Republic of Democratic Republics.

We the People lost this more substantially by our defeat in the War of Northern (Corporatist) Aggression. We lost more with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the illegal 16th Amendment. The final blow actually came in 1933 with Franklin Roosevelt’s illegal suspension of the U.S. Constitution. (The nearly identical Constitution of the Confederate States of America, however, has never been suspended and will be of full force upon the Restoration of the Confederacy).

The definition of a Democratic Republic is: A political system based on contractual law (Constitution) governed by the people through their democratically elected representatives. Our founding fathers created for us a Republic of Democratic Republics (National Republic made up of State Democratic Republics) which reserved unto the States and the people therein all powers not directly granted to the National Republic.

Democracy (Mobocracy) is: A political system based upon the whims of the majority of the people irrespective of Constitutional law and governed by their directly elected representatives in a form of mob rule. Minorities (heavily financed by certain tax exempt foundations) are able to gather mobs and march on Washington, often gaining their desires simply due to their showing and irrespective of Constitutional law or the desires of the majority.

In a Democracy, if a mob becomes a majority then the remaining minorities have no real protection of the law. There is little difference between a Pure Democracy and Communism in regards to the actual governing of the people except that communism may encompass complete State ownership of property, production and distribution with individual initiative, free enterprise and private profits being banned.

Communism is simply Democratic Socialism with or without a specifically named Communist Party. While pure and theoretical Communism and Fascism clash, no pure Communism has ever existed on the Earth. Rather there has been the veneer of Communism for the masses to believe while, in fact, a sharp dictatorship actually ran those communist governments.

Constitutional Republic of Democratic Republics is a legally defined balance between rule by constitutional law and representatives of the people. The balance is precarious and not easily maintained due to the greed of men for power and money. A Republic of Democratic Republics was the intent of our founding fathers for us and this was the intent of the Confederate States of America to restore, both in 1861 and today by those working for the restoration of the Confederacy.

On a National CSA level this type of government gives substantial representation to the various Sovereign States whereas on a Confederate State level, the people rule democratically according to their State Constitutions with little or no interference from the National CSA Government. State’s Rights reigns except in National Defense and multi-State disputes.

One of the main things that has brought the U.S. Republic of Republics down is the onslaught of corporations and their increasing power. Yet, a new Southern Nation can hardly hope to survive economically if it bans corporations. Something must be offered in return for reigning in corporate power in the South.

An idea exists based upon the reality that in the U.S. today there exists not 50 States, but several hundred States considering that large Corporations exert essentially the same if not greater power in Washington than do the States. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries.

Actually, today our States are more like Corporations partly owned by the Federal Corporation in Washington since they are substantially funded by the Federal Government. Meanwhile, large Chartered Corporations also exist with economic power and political influence exceeding some States. This form of government was not envisioned nor desired by our founding fathers.

Nor shall this be the form of government in a restored Confederacy which will emphasis State’s rights and substantial State sovereignty. More burden of government will be shifted to our cities and counties, and of course, our States and less burden and authority will be given the national CSA government.

A restored Confederate States of America government will have to deal with the problem of corporation and labor control to prevent damage to the then newly restored CSA Republic of Republics and also protect the companies and workers. New ideas designed to help both the corporations of the South and the workers therein must be introduced. Limitations upon the power of both groups also must be established.

A bill that could be passed by the new CSA government could be a Retirement Act requiring companies (employers) to pay into a retirement fund for workers after a probation period of one year. This retirement fund would transfer with the worker from one employer to another and would not be cashable by the worker or his assigns prior to his disability, retirement after 25 years, attainment of the age of 65 or death.

This fund would be on deposit with the Treasury of the Confederate States of America maturing to the benefit of said employee. The retirement fund would become fully funded after 25 years of employment and the fund would be set aside awaiting the worker’s retirement, disability or death. Should the worker continue to work a new retirement fund would begin which would be payable on top of the completed fund set aside allowing for a better retirement for longer working employees.

When transferring to a new employer, the worker would undergo a new probationary period of one year. Retirement payments would be rendered by the Treasury of the Confederate States of America and would be in addition to any social security that the worker might receive. The probation period for changing employers would tend to cause hesitancy on the part of the workers to change companies and develop more loyalty by the worker to his present employer.

Another Confederate bill that would be needed would be a Worker/Employer Responsibility Act. The ideas of this bill would be two fold. First, after a 30 day probationary period with a new company, the new employee would begin to vest longevity with the employer.

Thereafter, for each quarter of a year of employment with the firm, including the probationary period, the employee would build one week of separation pay at full salary or earnings, payable if fired or laid off, but not paid if the employee quits on his own without valid cause such as company harassment, etc.

The employers would be required to set aside this fund for each employee in a trust fund with the interest accruing to the benefit of the company, but beyond the reach of creditors. The various States would be asked to assure that such funds for workers in their states be current and that separation pay be paid promptly by the firms involved.

Should an employee quit or die the separation pay fund for that employee would be released back to the employer. But, employees who are forced to quit by harassment or threats shall be entitled to separation pay at double their highest salary or earnings.

An employer could require an employee to retire after 25 years with the firm without paying the separation pay. If the employee is hired again after his 25th year, he would start as a new employee at a new negotiated salary or earning scale and for purposes of separation pay benefits.

The effect of this bill would be to cause hesitation prior to firing or laying off employees on the part of company management. To fire or lay off an employee with say 18 years of employment with the firm would cost the firm 18 months of full salary or earnings plus benefits. Companies would need to think twice about irresponsible layoffs to achieve profits.

If layoffs were still needed, clearly, it would be better to retrain the employees with the most longevity and experience and would be more economical to lay off a more recently hired workers. Employees would develop more trust in the security of their job the longer they were with a firm, thus assisting in worker loyalty and the retention by the firm of the more experienced workers.

Other ideas would be the responsibility of the government of the Confederate States of America, especially in the curtailment of some of the power and authority of Corporations operating in the South to prevent monopoly and encourage new free enterprise companies.

A bill should be passed making it a felony for any employee of a Corporation or Bank or any other business to donate directly or indirectly any funds of the business to a any political candidate either State or national in the Confederate States of America. Individuals should be allowed to make donations from their own funds of any amount up to limit of $100,000.00 to each political candidate as they may so desire for State or national office in the Confederacy

These measures would be a good beginning in the curtailment of the power of Corporations and other business conglomerates over government in favor of returning power to the people under their Constitution.