Blessed Are the Peacemakers ... But Not in America

by: James E. Jennings, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Last month's 6-3 Supreme Court decision in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project found that humanitarian groups can be judged guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism merely by holding peaceful dialog and engaging in political discussions with proscribed organizations. Those convicted may be sentenced to up 15 years in prison.

On its face, this is an infringement of the constitutional right of free speech. It means that people engaged in such contacts can be jailed for meeting with, providing humanitarian aid to or discussing political goals and activities with groups that are on the terror list. The decision also affects Americans' rights of freedom of travel, association, conscience and religion when dealing with banned or so-called "terrorist" organizations. This ruling disallows such contacts, even if the intent is peaceful. Blessed are the peacemakers, but not in America!

The law as interpreted specifically limits the freedom of action of humanitarian aid and peacemaking dialog groups such as the ones I head. Conscience International has delivered humanitarian aid in Iraq under the Ba'athist regime, Iran under the Ayatollahs and Afghanistan under the Taliban, as well as elsewhere. Conscience International's peacemaking affiliate, US Academics for Peace, has met for dialog on "Deconstructing the Clash of Civilizations" with Iraq's Ba'ath Party leaders, with Hamas in Gaza and Damascus, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan and even with Janjaweed tribal leaders in Sudan.

Because of the court's decision, however, lower courts may soon hold that American citizens with constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, conscience and religion can no longer freely walk down the street and meet with or talk to people of all persuasions in the Middle East, North Africa or South Asia any more, much less meet formally with proscribed governments, rebel tribes and Islamist religious parties as we have done in the past.

The decision is a serious infringement on the Bill of Rights. But so is torture - and so is the court's decision some time ago that money equals speech, awarding those with monumental wealth permanent domination over the political process. It tramples freedom of speech, of conscience, of religion and of the right to travel. As such, it is in conflict with other Supreme Court decisions. Only three Justices dissented, led by Stephen Breyer and joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.

It now appears that the Obama neocon "Justice" Department is worse than the Bush-Cheney one because it is less obvious, but follows the same track - while Obama himself in his rhetoric and troop deployments imitates every aspect of the specious war on terror.

This is change, all right - but not in the direction we had hoped. The question is, what to do about it.
 

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



James E. Jennings Ph.D. is the president of Conscience International and executive director of US Academics for Peace.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Efforts now should be made

Efforts now should be made to prevent the goon apparatus from instigating open war with Iran.



Again, the question needs to

Again, the question needs to be asked, during bad economic times why we have such horrendous "decrees" from luddite conservatives with transparent politically arrogant agendas. The court seems to be obsessed with "terror" , an analogue to eviscerating freedoms. decisions seem to be aimed right at societies' least threatening of all. The elites and their paranoia are epidemic, and malignant. What keeps them up at night?



Preventing food labeling is

Preventing food labeling is another front in the war on free speech. Michael Taylor, the man chiefly responsible for enforcing Monsanto's interests on that, was appointed by Obama to an important job with food safety. I got a letter yesterday saying the Federal Election Commission is moving to punish groups for listing voting records and issue stands by congresspersons. On peace, it would be difficult for them to jail entire, large, urban churches, especially when some states are having to let convicts out because they can't afford to keep them in. There may be a point beyond which removing rights just does not work that well for the power freaks any more.



...And much less meet with

...And much less meet with formally proscribed, or very soon to be formally proscribed, individuals and/or organizations right here in "the land of the (now mostly slaves), and the home of the (now mostly cowards)" that is surrendering liberty to a greater and greater, and more and more frightening and horrifying, extent.

Let's say I'm on a "terrorist" watch list, as millions of completely innocent Americans are simply for their associations with with other formally proscribed individuals, organizations and/or activities, carrying out nothing but peacemaking, humanitarian and Constitutional activities, duties and rights, and other Americans and/or others who are not formally proscribed YET exercise their freedom(s) to have contact with me and discuss how evil, corrupt, dystopian, draconian and repressive the U.S. is more and more getting to be. As a result, very soon they will find themselves formally proscribed as well; and, thus, the government is getting more and more people to not want to stand up for nothing but what is right, or to even discuss what is really going on and how twisted this no longer free, and less and less free, nation is getting to be.

Do you now truly see how bad and dangerous things are very rapidly getting to be? Yet, what that means is, not that we have to bow down and do less and less to stand up against this fast flooding tide of evil, but that we've got to stand up against it more and more. It means that it is better to live free or die free; but not to die as complicit cowards and traitors; and not to, in any way, shape, form or fashion whatsoever, bow down to evil in the guise of "good".

The "War (OF!) Terrorism" and mass-murder, and against our liberties and freedoms, is NOT good. It is not protecting us as it claims to be doing; and, what it is truly doing, is eradicating our freedoms and liberties. As our liberties and freedoms are being done away with, we are more and more becoming the exact opposite of free, enslaved. But those who are truly free, or who stand for nothing but true liberty and freedom, cannot sit back and let this happen, and must stand up against it no matter what befalls them as a result.

"Give (us TRUE) liberty, or give (us) death"! Because a so-called "life" without True Liberty is a life not worth living anyway.



The Decision: Freedom or

The Decision: Freedom or Slavery?

http://www.infowars.com/the-decision-freedom-or-slavery/

The Excavator
July 16, 2010

It is obvious to every human being in the world that something is wrong in America, where the fate of a sports star is given prime-time attention on national television, while the fate of criminal bankers on Wall Street goes unreported, unmentioned, undecided. If John F. Kennedy was alive he would probably tell Americans: Ask not what Lebron James can do for your city’s basketball team; ask what Wall Street has done to your city’s dreams and hopes.

Instead of a Kennedy, or an Andrew Jackson in the White House, who called the private banking establishment a “den of vipers,” there is a callous, fake, and devious politician that does not have any loyalty to his country, or any inkling of patriotism. He golfs with big banksters, and delivers speeches written by top elitists. The man is so emotionally shallow that he can’t articulate the nation’s anger and distress about the state of the economy without the use of a teleprompter. He isn’t just missing a beat; he’s missing the entire song. And even when he is able to stir some emotions by appealing to people’s distrust of Wall Street, his words are no more authentic than those that are written for a Hollywood film actor. What’s even more scandalous is that he is manipulating the little public support that he has for a corrupt globalist political agenda that he was groomed early on in his political career to carry out.

What else can be said about such a despicable liar as the current President of the United States? Is he aware of the magnitude of the fraud that he is perpetuating on the American people, and on mankind? Does he perceive what penalties lie ahead for him by continuing to insult the American people’s intelligence and sovereignty? Do the American people fully understand the implications of his lies about the wars in the Middle East, 9/11, Wall Street, and the new corporate order agenda? If they did, they should impeach him now. Right now.

Writer and historian Thomas Carlyle warned in his 1850 essay, “Stump-orator,” about men like Barack Obama, and other deceptive politicians, saying that they must not be followed, but exposed, and forever shamed. Carlyle:

“Alas, the palpable liar with his tongue does at least know that he is lying, and has or might have some faint vestige of remorse and chance of amendment; but the impalpable liar, whose tongue articulates mere accepted commonplaces, cants and babblement, which means only 'Admire me, call me an excellent stump-orator!' –of him what hope is there? His thought, what thought he had, lies dormant, inspired only to invent vocables and plausibilities; while the tongue goes glib, the thought is absent, gone a-wool-gathering; getting itself drugged with the applausive 'Hear, hear!' –what will become of such a man? His idle thought has run all to seed, and grown false and the giver of falsities; the inner light of his mind is gone out; all his light is mere putridity and phosphorescence henceforth. Whosoever is in quest of ruin, let him with assurance follow that man.” (Carlyle, Latter-Day Pamphlets, pg. 181.)

How long will the world listen to anything that Obama says, or any other puppet lined up behind him who will continue the same agenda of permanent war, permanent spying by the sate, and permanent ownership of society by private banks and corporations? How long will you go along? How long will I?

Why aren’t there more individuals in the U.S. government like Thomas A. Drake and Sibel Edmonds? More talk show hosts on radio like Alex Jones? More journalists in the media like Russ Baker? More news anchors like Amy Goodman? More writers like Arthur Silber and Chris Floyd? More soldiers like Hugh Thompson, Jr.? The world needs bravery, and courage above everything else. Truth-tellers are the peacemakers. They are loyal to a higher authority, to human rights, to the rule of law. Obama, and the U.S. government have zero authority. Dissent against such a criminal state, and the corrupt politicians who serve it is not an act of unlawful rebellion, but an act of true citizenship; a reminder to petty tyrants that draconian laws will not be tolerated by free men and women.

In the book, “Crimes of Obedience: Toward A Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility,” authors Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton emphasize the power to say no to state sanctioned criminality that every human being is born with. Following orders is not a valid excuse. Avoiding individual responsibility is cowardice. They write; “Crimes of obedience are a consequence of authority run amok. They become possible when individuals abandon personal responsibility for actions taken under superior orders, continuing to obey when they ought to be disobeying.” (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989, pg. 20.)

For much of the book, Kelman and Hamilton focus on the breakdown of morality, and the human fear of state authority that had allowed the My Lai Massacre to take place, but at the very end they recount the hopeful story of a French village called Le Chambon that housed German and Eastern European Jews under Nazi rule:

“A deeply moving demonstration of the power of social norms against dehumanization was provided by the small Protestant village of Le Chambon in southern France in the years 1940 to 1944, during the period of the Vichy government and the Nazi occupation. (Hallie, 1979.) Under the leadership of their pastor, the villagers organized themselves into a place of refuge for victims of persecution, most of whom were Jews–and not even French Jews, but refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. At great cost and in the face of enormous dangers, the people of Le Chambon established houses of refuge for children, sheltered refugees in their own homes, provided them with identity and ration cards, took care of their needs, and helped them escape when the necessity or opportunity arose. Through their efforts, thousands of children and adults were saved from arrest, deportation, and certain death. Many factors combined to launch and sustain this project of organized resistance to government authority: the history of the Protestants in France; the Chambonnais’ sense of obligation to a higher, religious, authority; the character of Andre Trocme, the pastor, and the villagers’ relationship to him; the solidarity of the community. But the motive force behind the resistance, according to Philip Hallie, was the concern for individual human beings shared by the community’s leaders and members–a concern marked by an attitude of caring, a responsiveness to others’ pain, and a sense of duty to help human beings in need. The Chambonnais refused to go along with attempts to dehumanize the victims. When Andre Trocme was informed by a high official about the need to deport the Jews, he replied: 'We do not know what a Jew is. We know only men.' (Hallie, 1979, p. 103.) This response contrasts tellingly with Lieutenant Calley’s statement, cited earlier: 'I did not sit down and think in terms of men, women, and children. They were all classified the same . . . just as enemy soldiers.' (Hammer, 1971, p. 257.)

"We began this book with the story of a village in which a crime of obedience was committed during the Vietnam War. It is appropriate that we end the book with the recollection of another village, at another time and place, whose occupants individually and collectively resisted destructive authorities and refused complicity in an officially sanctioned crime. Despite the continuing prevalence of crimes of obedience and the widespread readiness to submit to authority without question, we draw some optimism from the knowledge that the world of modern bureaucracies provides the setting not only for My Lais but also for Le Chambons." (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989, pg. 337 – 338.)

It is a sad reflection of our times that the citizen is not the center of the political universe in America, or almost anywhere in the world, and when he is given some attention during a special occasion like an election, the central aim is to transfer his fanatical impulses that are usually dedicated to his favorite sports team, or television show to a particular political party, or political puppet. But as Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton illustrate in their book, the citizen has the power to place himself in the center of the moral universe, and from there, take a stand for human justice, and the rule of law.

If we collectively and peacefully resist the U.S. military, NATO, and Israel, then the war crimes in the Middle East will be stopped, and future crimes can be prevented. I can’t see why this is so difficult. What is stopping us from taking a bold stand for justice, and the rule of law? Most of us know how great a hoax the war on terrorism is, so why are we not taking a more assertive position against government authority in the West? Can we not see that what was once the shadow of tyranny is now in full-view, with its dark sun shining darkly over us? Are we too distracted by the latest celebrity gossip to decide between freedom and slavery, not only for ourselves, but for future generations, and not only in the West, but for all Mankind? How shameful it is that media propaganda has conquered the fighting spirits of men in our age, blunted our sense of right and wrong, and convinced us to live every day like the last; to tolerate gross human injustices, and the liars who help cover them up.

Professor William McNeile Dixon advised us in the middle of the last century to never lose sight of the treasures of human freedom, and never accept slavery in whatever rag it wraps itself. Dixon:

“Men are to accept serfdom for the sake of peace and quiet, the content of the dungeon, where you have regular meals, and are in danger from robbers. It is an agreeable prospect. For my part I should be much surprised and disappointed in my fellow creatures were they so poor in spirit as to prefer plenty in servitude to freedom with a diet of herbs, were they prepared to accept the ‘base, dishonorable, vile submission’, to lose all dignity and stateliness in their outlook upon both life and death. Time will tell.” (The Human Situation, pg. 292.)



This whole terror scenario

This whole terror scenario is a fantastic instrument in the hands of the elite. They can declare anyone terrorist, lock him/her up, prevent anyone from defending them and pretty much do whatever they want to do with them. This is a precursor to major problems ahead. The system is crumbling because the top 1/100,000 is getting all they can from the the rest, while the number of the poor is progressively increasing. Eventually, these armies of unemployed, a lot of them educated, will resort to violence if they are faces with starvation. They would want to be in jails instead of dying from hunger. The elite can declare martial law and haul a lot of them to jails, or just shoot them in the name of terror. I see a blood bath in the next 10 years. I hope I am wrong.



What great comments! It

What great comments! It seems true that USA and Israel have no desire for peace, but only for dominance for the élite few. "Terrorist" is overused,and those organisations so designated tend to be nationalistic and limited in scope like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are not "international" or interested in anything but regaining their own land.



Terrorist is as general as

Terrorist is as general as pornography. There's no universally agreed-upon definition of either.

My question is this:

Is there no way to impeach decisions such as this one? Are our illustrious public servants precluded from calling into question decisions from the Supremes that so overtly challenge the Constitution?



Anon 18:52 above - Brilliant

Anon 18:52 above - Brilliant post. Indeed "Obedience is the great multiplier of Evil" - that is my favorite quote of all time. We are in a law enforcement climate that soon it will be 'aiding the enemy' to protest the war - we approach low ebb. The longer we procrastinate, the more likely the hideous outcomes become.



Can anyone tell me, what is

Can anyone tell me, what is the difference between these laws, and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 other than the word change from slave, to terrorist, or illegal immigrants?

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An April 24, 1851 poster warning colored people in Boston about policemen acting as slave catchers.

The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a 'slave power conspiracy'. It declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.
Contents

* 1 Background
* 2 New law
o 2.1 Effects
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 Notes
* 6 External links

[edit] Background

The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intention of enforcing Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.

Some Northern states passed"personal liberty laws", mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved. Otherwise, they feared free blacks could be kidnapped into slavery. Other states forbade the use of local jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of such fugitives. In some cases, juries simply refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law. Moreover, locals in some areas actively fought attempts to seize fugitives and return them to the South. And everywhere that was not tied with slavery, abolitionists spoke against this.

The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free.[1] The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.
[edit] New law

Part of a series on
Slavery

Early history
History · Antiquity · Aztec
Ancient Greece · Rome
Medieval Europe
Thrall · Kholop · Serfdom
Slavery and religion
The Bible · Judaism
Christianity · Islam
By country or region
Africa · Atlantic · Arab
Coastwise · Angola
Barbary Coast
Britain and Ireland
British Virgin Islands
Brazil · Canada · India · Iran
Japan · Libya · Mauritania
Romania · Spanish New World
Sudan · Sweden · United States
Contemporary
Modern Africa · Debt bondage
Penal labour · Sexual slavery
Unfree labour · Human trafficking
Opposition and resistance
Timeline · Abolitionism
Compensated emancipation
Opponents of slavery‎
Slave rebellion · Slave narrative
v • d • e

In the response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. [2]
[edit] Effects

In fact, the Fugitive Slave Law brought the issue home to anti-slavery citizens in the North, since it made them and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. Even moderate abolitionists were now faced with the immediate choice of defying what they believed an unjust law or breaking with their own consciences and beliefs. The case of Anthony Burns fell under this statute.

The Fugitive Slave Act brought a defiant response from abolitionists. Reverend Luther Lee, pastor of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Syracuse, New York wrote in 1855:
“ I never would obey it. I had assisted thirty slaves to escape to Canada during the last month. If the authorities wanted anything of me, my residence was at 39 Onondaga Street. I would admit that and they could take me and lock me up in the Penitentiary on the hill; but if they did such a foolish thing as that I had friends enough on Onondaga County to level it to the ground before the next morning. The slaves could no longer take control over what they could never imagine. ”

This was far from empty rhetoric; several years before, in the famous Jerry Rescue, Syracuse abolitionists did free by force a fugitive slave who was about to be sent back into the South and successfully smuggled him to Canada.

In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture. Ultimately, in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court.[3][4]

Other opponents, such as African American leader Harriet Tubman, simply treated the law as just another complication in their activities. The most important reaction was making the neighboring country of Canada the main destination of choice for runaway slaves.

With the outbreak of the American Civil War, General Benjamin Butler justified refusing to return runaway slaves in accordance to this law because the Union and the Confederacy were at war: the slaves could be confiscated and set free as contraband of war. The South also argued that the Fugitive Slave Act only applied to the Union; the South had broken away, so the law did not apply to the Confederacy.
[edit] See also
Search Wikisource Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Fugitive Slave Act

* Fugitive slave laws
* Prigg v. Pennsylvania
* Ableman v. Booth
* Underground Railroad
* Emancipation Proclamation

Incidents involving fugitive slaves:

* Passmore Williamson
* Anthony Burns
* Christiana incident (or riot), 1851
* Joshua Glover
* The Jerry Rescue
* Shadrach Minkins

[edit] References

* Stanley W. Campbell, The Slave Catchers: Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, 1850-1860 (1970)
* Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Slaveholding Republic : An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery (2002)
* John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger, Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation (1999)
* "Fugitive Slave Law" (2008)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ "Missouri courts on a number of occasions had granted freedom to slaves whose owners had taken them for long periods of residence in free states or territories", America in 1857: A nation on the Brink by Kenneth M. Stampp (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 84.
2. ^ action=view&term_id=9153&keyword=fugitive+slave+act Fugitive Slave Act
3. ^ Booth, Sherman Miller 1812 - 1904
4. ^ Fugitive Slave Act

[edit] External links

* Complete text of the Fugitive Slave Law
* Compromise of 1850 and related resources at the Library of Congress
* "Slavery in Massachusetts" by Henry David Thoreau
* Runaway Slaves a Primary Source Adventure featuring fugitive slave advertisements from the 1850s, hosted by The Portal to Texas History

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850"
Categories: 1850 in law | 1850 in American politics | United States federal legislation | Bleeding Kansas | History of Wisconsin | Extradition | Slavery in the United States



Of course the peacemakers

Of course the peacemakers aren't "blessed" in America. Or any other government, probably, for that matter. Peacemakers, including Jesus, have always been rebels: people who fought the system.



Although I am deeply

Although I am deeply disappointed in the Obama administration's decision to even bring an issue like this to the supreme court, they did...but, hey, it totally extends our rights under our faux bill of rights (the original Bill of Rights having been decimated by George & Cheney)



The only terrorist

The only terrorist organizations that it would be foolish to talk to are the Democratic and Republican parties and the military, diplomatic and political arms of the United Snakes government. The only language they understand is the language of force.

Victory to the FARC, the New People's Army, Hezbollah and Hamas!



But do we have access to the

But do we have access to the list of terror groups??



What? Another impeachable

What? Another impeachable event???

Our employees in our government took an oath to protect the Constitution. They DID NOT take an oath to protect WE THE PEOPLE. But in reality, they are protecting the upper 1% plutocracy, who own the multinational corporations, who employ TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND LOBBYISTS to thwart democracy by legally bribing our representatives to commit treason.



coach handbags cheap

check coach handbags for cheap suprisely QtneLsVD http://www.cheap-coach-handbags.us/



outlet burberry online

buy burberry outlet online online shopping twKxaKOH http://www.outlet-burberry-online.org/