|
| |
Sovereign Immunity ~ the Tool of Tyranny (revised - 2nd
edition)
(2nd edition - July 2007) by A.O. Kime
 a conditional 'free-to-reprint' article
(see below)
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 2863) and the license
to torture
Since the early days, U.S. congressmen have voted to enact
laws which were later ruled unconstitutional or were otherwise ‘un-American’
(unethical, unjust). While the reasons may be numerous, we at least know
legislators often did so on behalf of special interests or were vote swapping (tit-for-tat). We
might also suspect it was often a matter of expediency but still, in light of
the consequences, all reasons must be considered on a par. In a very real sense,
they are equally unforgivable and traitorous. After all, the result is the
same... justice was compromised.
More recently however, those who voted for the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 2863) on December 21, 2005 will be
remembered as the most damaging of legislators. The exception was that
Senator John McCain and a few active supporters of his amendment at
least tried to right a ongoing wrong. This amendment was the Detainee Treatment
Act of 2005 (Title X prohibits the inhumane treatment of prisoners).
While initially Title X had some merit, although one of timidness, in the end
its potential was negotiated away. In fact, the tables were turned... the
amendment became a Trojan horse of political cozenage. And, as if nobody
recognized the danger... the act was ratified. While the act itself may have
been reasonable, the amendment should have been withdrawn if Section 1004 was to
be included.
Of particular concern is Section 1004 (below)... the "Protection of United
States Government Personnel Engaged in Authorized Interrogations*. Outrageously, it was a ‘concession’ granted
to President Bush in exchange for his
acceptance of this amendment (Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) and a grave
mistake... the reason being
McCain and company were out-foxed.
While Senator McCain's attempt to prohibit the inhumane treatment of
prisoners was a noble gesture, although doubtful it will have any positive
effects in that regard, there is a monumental downside of horrid proportions... it puts American
citizens in further jeopardy. By granting immunity to the
CIA and other government agents from lawsuits arising out of claims of torture,
this errant ‘concession' also dissolved that recourse for American citizens.
While not in so many words was it dissolved but that's the effect.
Broadening the scope of Sovereign Immunity
So, instead of reigning-in George Bush (as intended), Section 1004 only broadened
the scope of Sovereign Immunity. It gave law enforcement tyrannous flexibility.
Chief Justice Marshall once said "there is no right without a remedy".
Justice Scalia wrote... "Nothing in our Constitution grants any person
immunity. Nothing in our Constitution grants any person the power to grant
immunity to another person. Nothing in our Constitution grants any officer,
dignitary, member of the government, elected official, or government subdivision
immunity. Yet today numerous government agents, officials and others claim to be
immune from the same laws that you and I must follow."
In referring to H.R. 2863, Tom Wilner, a lawyer representing Kuwaiti detainees
at Guantanamo Bay, said "I think this language being enacted will more than
erase anything good that comes out of McCain."
As if actually needed, Section 1004 states it would protect CIA agents from lawsuits,
except… the potential for lawsuits filed by foreigners is remote.
The judicial apparatus makes it remote. If, however, the CIA was to be
successfully sued by a foreigner… then it is probably warranted. In fact, the Medieval monarchical
concept of 'sovereign immunity'
(external link) has no place in a democracy and should be repealed entirely. After all, the very idea
flies in the face of justice... it was
even repudiated in the Magna Carta 800 years ago. Perhaps not
even the recently exhumed Alien Tort Statute of 1789 should be considered a
threat but instead an instrument of justice... see
When can foreigners sue in US courts? (Christian Science Monitor).
Far truer however, law enforcement need only fear the potential for lawsuits
filed by American citizens. In that case then, it must be the greater reason for
Section 1004. And, similar to how Sovereign Immunity was extended to cover
virtually all government agents, such as IRS agents, judges, police and even
caseworkers with the Child Protective Service, this immunity against claims of
torture will soon gravitate downwards to anyone with a badge.
Whomsoever might be claimed a terrorist (a dangerously vague term) will be in
jeopardy. Marching protestors could be considered terrorists… it only needs be
said.
So, as if license to kill
(external link)
wasn’t enough, George Bush won protection for his torturers. Further, by
granting 'ignorance of the law' as a defense, it effectively re-allows all
methods of torture disallowed by the McCain amendment.
The re-condoning of torture (of any sort)
SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN
AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or
criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces,
or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person,
arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other
agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and
interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are
believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity
that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or
its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at
the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer,
employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the
practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would
not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel
should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a
person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be
unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any
defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit,
civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution
for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.
(b) Counsel- The United States Government may provide or employ counsel, and pay
counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the
representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other
agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal
prosecution arising out of practices described in that subsection, under the
same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are
authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code. (underlined
added)
Professional ignorance of the law?
While ignorance of the law might often seem a reasonable ‘excuse’ for citizens,
although it legally isn’t, the above is referring to professionals… law enforcement and
military personnel trained and knowledgeable about such legalities. It should
therefore NEVER be a defense.
Further, since no law enforcement officer or military personnel could be
considered being in those positions without training, they WOULD or SHOULD know what is legal
and what isn’t.
So why have this ‘protection’?
To enable the government to operate outside the law at all times under any circumstance.
The enemies of America?
So, how should one characterize a legislator who voted for its passage? Is 'traitorous'
too strong a word? After all, these same legislators also did some good... like increasing social
security benefits for example. So how can this incongruence, if applicable, be reconciled?
Perhaps on any given day one human trait must triumph?
While treason may be applicable in many instances over bad legislation, or perhaps stupidity,
or that there was little due diligence, on which vote might either of these be
applicable? After all, before a bill becomes law there are many
motions one must vote upon. There are also amendments. In addition, strategies
might explain a few yes votes during the initial stages.
While votes on amendments tell a story, the vote on final passage is the most
telling. As far as H.R. 2863 is concerned, with this treachery included no senators voted against it. Three senators, however, did not vote...Bunning (R-KY),
Gregg (R-NH) and Leahy (D-VT)... (their reasons unknown)
While assuredly some senators must have recognized this snafu, or otherwise had
reservations, except for the three mentioned they nonetheless voted for it.
Why? Even though expediency may often be the culprit, or a sheep mentality which
is often the case, as long as justice is in doubt then a 'no' vote is the only ethical alternative.
Until kingdom come it is the only alternative. The reasoning "this is the best
we can get" is no excuse if it sacrifices justice. If most senators held to this
credo we'd get much better laws (and fewer).
A.O. Kime
* Some wording in Section 1004 was later amended by the Senate in S.3930.ENR on
September 28, 2006 (the Military Commissions Act of 2006)...
see SEC. 8. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. (Go to Library of Congress
for search page... enter S.3930.ENR then scroll down to Sec. 8)
Alien Tort Statute of 1789 links:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Box: © A.O. Kime (2006)
A.O. Kime is the author of two books plus 70+ articles on ancient history,
spiritual phenomena, political issues, social issues and agriculture which
can be seen at http://www.matrixbookstore.biz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You may reprint this
article on your website, blog or ezine (Internet) for free provided it is not altered
and the 'Resource Box' above accompanies it (the hyperlink within this box must
remain functioning).
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~
 |
Wisdom from the Golden Ages!
As the ancients did, learn how to discover the secrets of life... |
 |
The real story of the Stone Age!
Learn we didn't evolve from an ape nor crawled from the sea...
|
Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues
This website and contents are explained in our Introduction
>TOP
>HOME
| |
A.O. Kime
articles
—AGRICULTURE
Biocontrols
Bio-oddities
DDT ban
Family farmers
Family farms
Farm socialism
Kansas Settlement
—ANTIQUITY
American cavemen
Ancient history
Ancient pyramids
Caveman facts
Caveman story
Cavemen-cultural
Charles Darwin
Cumbemayo
Evolution
Kennewick Man
Montezuma Castle
Neanderthals
Pre-Clovis cultures
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
—METAPHYSICAL
Bodhisattva
Death
Divine
intelligence
Dreams
Enlightenment
Ethics
Guardian angels
Hope
Imagination
Immortality
Instincts
Land (the)
Matrix (real)
Metaphysics
Mnemosyne
Muse
Phenomena
Plotinus
Poetry
Polytheism
Semantics
Sixth sense
Spiritual soul
Spirit world
Subconscious mind
Suicide
Supernatural
—SOCIOPOLITICAL
19th Century
Arrogance
Civil wars
Civilization
Coolness
Economic injustices
Establishment
Foreign policies
Freedom
Globalization
Grand Jury
Herodotus
Int'l Criminal Court
Majority rule
Megalomania
Politesse
Proposition 203
Power lust
Rule of law
Sovereign immunity
Tobacco taxation
War criminals
World wars
|
METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
