www.QuoVadam.com

After hearing and reading various articles about the Military Commissions Act, which was signed on October of 2006, I decided to do some research and find out what exactly this new Act details and why. After quite a bit of digging, reading articles, filtering out rhetoric and sensationalism, and balancing facts versus factoids, I have come to a better understanding of what this new Act entails.

After much thought, I find myself rather appalled at the extent of the power given to the Executive Branch of our government, namely the President and Vice President, during what they are free to define as a “State of Emergency”, by the Military Commissions Act.

A summary of the basis of the Military Commissions Act is as follows:

The Military Commissions Act strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals of anyone held in US custody as an “unlawful enemy combatant”. An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as “an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.” Hostility is defined as any American citizen who is acting in a way the President deems “hostile” to the United States. (Full Text (PDF))

Although this is a summary, it gives a good description of the intent behind the Military Commissions Act.

There are also many little sections of the Military Commissions Act that detail exactly what the Executive Branch can control during a “State of Emergency”. Here is a sample excerpt of some of the powers granted to the Executive Branch during a such an emergency:

EO# 12656: Appoint the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. (Full Text)

EO# 11003: Confiscate all airports and aircraft, including commercial airliners. (Full Text)

EO# 11005: Take over all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, public and private. (Full Text)

EO# 10990: Confiscate all modes of transportation and highways. (Full Text)

EO# 10995: Seize and control “communication media” (Full Text)

EO# 10997: Take over all electrical power, gas petroleum, fuels and minerals, both public and private. (Full Text)

EO# 10998: Take over all food supplies and resources, public and private, including farms and equipment. (Full Text)

EO#11921: Control the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions. (Full Text)

EO#11051: Place all executive orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. (Full Text)

EO#11000: Mobilize American civilians into work brigades under government supervision. (Full Text)

Other interesting bits are the additional National Security and Homeland Security directives which the Military Commissions Act allows. An excerpt directive:

National Security Presidential Directive 20/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51: The President may control and coordinate all three branches of government in the event of catastrophic emergency. Catastrophic emergency is defined as “any incident, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” (Full Text)

These are all rather vague in their descriptions of what exactly constitutes a state of emergency. It essentially gives the Executive Branch the freedom to define it in virtually any way they wish.

Another interesting note:

NSPD20/HSPD51 Annex A: Classified
NSPD20/HSPD51 Section 24: Classified

Also, recently a $385m open ended contract awarded to Kellog, Brown, and Root, an engineering and construction company which is a subsidiary of Haliburton, the company behind the government contracting bid scandal, by the Department of Homeland Security, provides for establishing temporary detention facilities and processing areas on American soil.

In layman’s terms, these facilities are internment camps. Which brings us to an older executive order, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor. A heavily paraphrased summary is as follows:

EO# 9066: Various military personnel are authorized to create designated areas which people may not leave without authorization from commanding military personnel. Persons living in this area are to remain in these areas until authorization is obtained. Likewise, enforced compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area herein is authorized. (Full Text)

That was the executive order which initiated the opening of the Japanese internment camps during WWII.

Again, very vague and, not to mention, rather unnerving. When I think of the implications of this, along with the other various executive orders, I am reminded of Orson Welles’ 1984. That book, alone, should be warning enough.

One of the more recent executive orders to be added was given a name instead of a number. This name is just as ambiguous, if not more, than the details contained therein.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq (Full Text)

Essentially, this is designed for blatent obstructions to the war efforts in Iraq. However, it could easily be applied to something as simple as buying an anti-war t-shirt. Essentially, a person would be funding anti-war efforts and, therefore, obstructing efforts to advance the war. Don’t believe me? A man was not too recently arrested in a mall for wearing an anti-war shirt (Full Text). Obviously, this was not related to the executive order in question, as this was a decision made explicitly by the mall administration. However, this is a perfect example of what could happen, on a large scale, should the President decide that a given group of protesters fall within his definition of obstruction. A definition which is clear in parts, yet extremely vague in others.

These are very scary things. I realize that they are for the sake of protecting our country, but giving up freedoms for the sake of safety leaves the door wide open to tyranny. An old saying, although often improperly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, still holds true, regardless of it’s unknown origin:

“Any society that would give up liberty to gain security will deserve neither and lose both.” - Unknown

Now, I am not pointing the finger at the Bush Administration, nor President Bush, nor Vice President Cheney, as this new Act has the potential of being grossly abused by anyone currently in the Executive Branch, as well as future administrations. However, I find the current side stepping of judicial oversight by the Executive Branch, namely President Bush and Vice President Cheney, in regards to the many subpoenas regarding Alberto Gonzales and the U.S. Attorney dismissal case, very disheartening. That, along with certain comments made by President Bush and Vice President Cheney alluding to their belief that the Executive Branch is not subject to oversight by any other branch of government, really makes me wonder.

Being an evangelical Christian, I have often been lumped in with and accused of being a die hard supporter of President Bush. Just to clarify, I only support the office of the President, as I believe that it is my duty to pray for the leaders of this world. This duty extends to any president, king, or chairman who holds office. This does not mean that I must, without question, support the many decisions made by those leading.

I can say, with a completely clear conscience and free of conviction, that I am not in full support of many of the decisions made during the time this administration has been in office. I feel like this administration has made many grave mistakes. Respectfully, I recognize that they are human just like the rest of us and will never be perfect. This does not, however, free them of the consequences of the many dangerous, and borderline tyrannical decisions which have been made.

Whether those decisions were made by the man himself, or by others wishing to gain an upper hand in the administration, is up for debate. However, because of the way these new executive orders are written, a “State of Emergency” can be anything, and the power now given to our leaders in a loosely defined “State of Emergency” really is quite frightening. Again, it’s not that I am limiting my observations to this administration, just that I am especially suspicious of this administration, given their repeated disregard for constitutional limitations, checks and balances, and particularly habeus corpus. Likewise, I truly feel that as a bible believing, evangelical Christian, it is also my duty to hold the leaders of this world accountable to a higher standard, and when that standard is not met, that rather than turn a blind eye in steadfast support, I should use discernment and wisdom in determining whether that support should continue.

Thankfully, I live in a country where it is possible for me to write the piece I am writing right now. However, continuing to turn a blind eye to a slow erosion of personal liberty will one day have us opening our eyes on a day when liberty does not exist. The more centralized and powerful the federal government becomes, the closer we come to approaching a totalitarian state. The fact is, however, that when one particular branch has the power that the Executive Branch has given itself over the past six years, checks and balances disappear, and totalitarian regimes take shape. That kind of power is absolutely terrifying, especially when in the hands of a major world power.

I just hope and pray that God gives our leaders the wisdom to step back and think clearly, put power and possible corruption aside, and make the right decisions. Otherwise, Orson Welles may quickly become a modern day prophet.

Finally, a quote, made by MSNBC News Anchor Keith Olbermann after news of the signing of the Military Commissions Act reached national news outlets. I find it to be one of the truest statements made since the tragedy of 9/11:

“We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived as people in fear. And now, our rights and our freedoms in peril, we slowly awaken to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing. Therefore tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy. For on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, a government more dangerous to our liberty then is the enemy it claims to protect us from.” – Keith Olberman, October 17, 2006

How do you deal with someone who refuses to help themselves? What do you do with the person who keeps doing everything but the very things necessary to be the person they could be?

I’m so frustrated. I’m furious. Yet, at the same time, I see the very same problems in myself. So maybe I’m more mad at myself. Maybe I’m so fed up with this person because I’m fed up with my own refusal to do the things I know I should be doing.

Sure, my problems may not be as severe, but the core issue is still the same. I know I should be doing certain things which will move my life down a particular path more smoothly than it is currently moving. Maybe I need to commit to fixing myself and hope and pray that this other person does the same.

So, I had my first incident where someone hung around outside the bar after we closed and asked for a ride home.

I felt bad saying no, because, most likely, the guy was just drunk and didn’t want to walk. However, I make it a strict rule to never give rides to a patron unless I personally know them. I had never seen this guy before, and even though he just lived a few minutes down the street, I just couldn’t do it.

It’s really weird how much more cautious we get as we get older.

When I was 16, I struck out in rebellion and ran off to Michigan for what I was hoping would be a while. While waiting in the downtown Detroit Greyhound bus terminal, I struck up a conversation with a homeless guy outside. The conversation started with me needing to break a 20, him walking down the street to a taxi, getting the change, then bringing it back. I remember that something struck me about his honesty (or working me for a couple dollars, whichever).

Well, that was at 4AM. For the next four hours, we sat and talked about everything. Where he was from. What he used to do. What happened that put him out on the streets. We talked, we smoked, and, for those four hours, I really feel like we shared our lives with each other. He even went to the liqour store and bought a liter of vodka, which we proceded to split (ok, realistically it was more like 25/75, but I still remember drinking a lot of it). Anyway, by 8AM, he and I had shared our life stories, he had introduced me to about 10 of his buddies, and managed to get me pretty darn drunk. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but we talked about a lot of things in those four hours.

When I left, I gave him about five packs of cigarettes, two pair of jeans (he had missed the clothing drive at the church and his pair was down to threads), and 10 bucks. Before I left, he stopped me, looked me in the eye, and started crying. He said “Jared, you’re the nicest white dude I’ve ever met, and no one has ever treated me like you did this morning.” His name was Red. His buddies called him “Chairman of the Board.”

It was an experience that I doubt I will ever forget. Was it stupid. Yes. Would I do it again? It would depend on the circumstances. However, in those exact circumstances, no, not at all.

So back to tonight. Other than the fact that I had never seen this guy before, there was really no reason to not help him out. He even seemed really bummed that I wouldn’t just give him a ride down the street. I guess I feel bad because he seemed genuine. I just felt like it was wise to stick to my personal policy of not giving rides to patrons with whom I’m not familiar.

I know it was the wise thing to do, but that still doesn’t keep me from feeling bad, though.