Wednesday, August 06, 2008

'They may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!'

By assuming the power to wage war upon the people of the United States, Bush has made it official: he is a traitor. Under the US Constitution, the people themselves are sovereign and Bush has declared war upon the sovereign. The word for that in law and throughout history is: high treason! [See: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story]

The Constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United States of Mexico or, if you prefer, United Mexican States) is the product of a revolution that was waged in that country in 1910. Unfortunately, the American United States, (Estados Unidos) could not be expected to have given a revolution in Mexico an adequate treatment, having failed to educate US citizens about its own history. Arguably, George W. Bush could never have gotten away with a complete repudiation of the US Constitution had Americans known as much of their history as do the citizens of Mexico about their country.

Cases in point involve the rights of individuals vs the powers of 'state'. States have no powers but those which derive by the consent of the people. The people, in fact, are sovereign. Any 'leader' who wages war upon them is, by defintion, a traitor! It is on this issue that Bush is either dead wrong or deliberately lying.

It is unfortunate that in the United States, for example, a 'Bill of Rights' was almost an after thought. So confident was James Madison that the Philadelphia Constitution was itself a bulwark against tyranny by virtue of an ingenious 'separation of powers' that he felt a separate 'Bill of Rights' to be unnecessary if not superfluous. At last, when a 'Bill of Rights' was insisted upon, Madison would draft it himself and his work therein is arguably more relevant to the individual than are those powers delegated either the President or Congress in the main body of the Constitution. It is the Bill of Rights which draws the line between state and individual, a line that state dare not trespass. People as 'sovereign' may (to use Thomas Jefferson's word) 'abolish states at their pleasure!

In Mexico (also called Estados Unidos) it is, I think, especially notable that the rights of individuals were not merely after thoughts. The rights of individuals vs those powers of state that might transgress against them are dealt with upfront and in language strong and unambiguous. While the body of the US Constitution is concerned with enumerating the powers and responsibilities of three branches of government, the very first Article in the Mexican Constitution deals with the rights of the people and individuals.
These rights cannot be denied and they cannot be suspended. Slavery is illegal in Mexico; any slaves from abroad who enter national territory will, by this mere act, be freed and given the full protection of the law.
Also covered Article I is the prohibition of all types of discrimination based on ethnic or national origins, sex, age, or social conditions. Everyone is protected by the rule of law regardless of different capacities or talents, social class or conditions, health, opinions, or preferences.

Bush, meanwhile, claims a 'right' to wage war upon the people themselves. This concept is TREASONOUS! Mexican revolutionaries understood what Bush does not: the people are sovereign. This principle was agreed to at Runnymede by King John and it is the very basis for Democracy; it the very foundation upon which any Democracy is based. Any state which presumes to wage 'war' upon its people or to enslave them upon ANY pretext is, by definition, a dictatorship, a tyranny and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, it must be overthrown, by force if need be!
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Che Guevara said put it this way:
Of these three propositions the first two contradict the defeatist attitude of revolutionaries or pseudo-revolutionaries who remain inactive and take refuge in the pretext that against a professional army nothing can be done, who sit down to wait until in some mechanical way all necessary objective and subjective conditions are given without working to accelerate them.

As these problems were formerly a subject of discussion in Cuba, until facts settled the question, they are probably still much discussed in America. Naturally, it is not to be thought that all conditions for revolution are going to be created through the impulse given to them by guerrilla activity. It must always be kept in mind that there is a necessary minimum without which the establishment and consolidation of the first center is not practicable.

People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken.

--Guerilla Warfare, Che Guevara

Bush, by contrast, has said that 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" and, in so declaring, he has begun his war upon the people. He is a traitor! He must be charged with high treason and brought to trial. King Charles I of England lost his head for less or similar offenses.

Bush has repeatedly asserted a 'power' to wage war on the American people, claiming and aggressively exercising, the "right to use any and all war powers against American citizens within the United States". Like any other tin-horn dictator he insists that he is above all restraints by Congress and the courts. In any state in which the people are sovereign, anyone waging war upon them is a traitor and is, by law, guilty of high treason! See: Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Fight Begins - Strategies for Moving Forward

Many of these 'wars' are still fought north of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo in Mexico). They are still fought north of the Rio Grande because of one party primarily: the GOP, otherwise called the Republican party, in fact, not a 'Republican' party at all but the party of the self-declared and absolute dictatorship of George W. Bush.

In 1910, the people of Mexico were oppressed by the regime of Porfirio Diaz. Unlike the people of the United States, Diaz was effectively opposed and eventually deposed by a people's revolution which was eventually responsible for elevating the rights of the people as opposed to the assume and arbitrary prerogatives of any government.

Revolution 1910

As he was portrayed by Mel Gibson in 'Braveheart', William Wallace addressed his rag tag band of 'revolutionary' Scots and allied Irish who opposed the oppressive regime of King Edward, called 'Longshanks'. "What will you do without freedom?", Wallace asked!

What will Americans do unless freedom is restored in Bush's wake? Will America simply slide off into oblivion, slavery, bankruptcy and collapse?

Don't dismiss the notion. Financially, the US is already bankrupt, careers lay in ruins, millions have already lost homes and suffered broken families. The worst is yet to come and FEMA has not constructed a gulag of camps for nothing. The Bill of Rights is but a memory and unless Bush is challenged, it will remain so. The next time you feel the impulse to condescend to your neighbor who lives south of the historic Rio Grande, reflect upon the fact that he is still protected by a rule of law which states without exception:
These rights cannot be denied and they cannot be suspended.
Since the ascension of Bush, you have NO SUCH guarantees!

Jesse Ventura lays it all on the line on the Howard Stern show. Jesse correctly and politely states the issues in question regarding the war and the events of 911.

Part 1

Part 2

A Police State Update:
DALLAS (Reuters) - Texas defied the World Court and executed a Mexican national by lethal injection on Tuesday over the objections of the international judicial body and neighboring Mexico.

Jose Medellin, 33, was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m. CDT in the state's death chamber in Huntsville, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said.

He had been condemned for the 1993 rape and murder of 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena in Houston and lost his bid late Tuesday for a last-minute stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The World Court last month ordered the U.S. government to "take all measures necessary" to halt the upcoming executions of five Mexicans including Medellin's on the grounds that they had been deprived of their right to consular services after their arrests.

Medellin's execution is sure to anger neighboring Mexico and analysts have said it could make life rough for Americans arrested abroad if other countries decide to evoke the U.S. example and deprive them of their right to consular services.

This typically means diplomats will visit and provide legal advice to their nationals being held by authorities.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had recommended that the state's Republican governor Rick Perry not grant a temporary reprieve, paving the way for Medellin's execution.

Texas, which executes far more convicts than any other U.S. state, had taken the view that the brutal nature of Medellin's crimes rendered him unfit for a reprieve or lesser sentence.

--Ed Stoddard, Texas Defies the World With Execution
Additional resources:

Published Articles



Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine
Post a Comment