Learning Stories
by
Mario deSantis

mariodesantis@hotmail.com

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, and free to choose those who shall govern my country.” - -The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960

“The whole judicial system is at issue, it's worth more than one person.”--Serge Kujawa, Saskatchewan Crown Prosecutor, 1991

“The system is not more worth than one person's rights.”--Mario deSantis, 2002

Ensign Stories © Mario deSantis and Ensign

(Reprinted From Journal Online)

Saturday, December 08, 2001


Opinion polls showing support for tribunals (and other civil liberty attacks) are mere reflections of media-power abuses! Our problem may not directly be terrorists, but those who obsessively seek to manipulate human beings with war and domination tactics.

Under the circumstances, the so called "public support" for tribunals (and other attacks on our civil liberties) likely reflect the level of fear-tactics that the media and administration have used to obtain American conformity and subjugation. Absent a free press, most Americans are in the dark, thus, this "public support for tribunals" means little.

While tribunals were used by President Roosevelt, as Senator Hatch pointed out during the hearing yesterday, the key in evaluating the usefulness of tribunals was in Senator Leahy's response to Hatch. Leahy astutely reminded us of what we have learned since about the REAL purpose of Roosevelt's tribunals: to PROTECT HOOVER and associates from what the proceedings may have revealed about them to the public.

This may be THE key to understanding Ashcroft's inability to explain why the administration wants to exclude the judicial and legislative branches.

It is not inconceivable that tribunals would currently serve a similar purpose, considering mounting reports of warm relations between U.S. oil industries and Taliban.

One thing is certain. It would be foolish to again wait twenty or forty years to find the truth!

First, no REAL reason has been given why trials cannot be handled under current laws. And why ignore the best alternative: the International World Court? The fight against terrorism should not be limited to a national campaign. To do so would not be in our interest (fueling nationalistic support is only in interest of Bush and company). In fact, tribunals would make the fight against terrorism more difficult. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/06/opinion/06OREN.html

Terrorism is a crime against humanity. The most effective way to fight terrorism is to frame it as a worldwide effort, addressing the inequalities with "Marshall Plan" type programs. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/opinion/30LEWI.html

Second, have we considered what factors are associated with the power of secrecy given military tribunals? All kinds of people disappear in countries that have tribunals. In our own country, we have barely examined the misuses of power by our government in covert operations aimed at destroying civil rights, peace and environmental organizations in the last 50 years. Isn't secrecy already a serious threat to our citizens and democracy!? Wouldn't it be even more dangerous if there are no checks and balances on powers of the executive office (currently held by corporate bully puppet Bush)? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

These are attacks on democracy, which seems to pose the greatest threat to corporate profits.

Third, why were democrats so easy on Ashcroft at the hearing? Surely, Ashcroft has not given them reason to trust him to do what is right for ALL American citizens since he last appeared before them. Are they not aware how may laws and rights he's trampled on in just a few months? Haven't they noticed increases in gun sales and the push to make carrying weapons legal nationwide (already passed in three states)? WHY would any senator be satisfied with Ashcroft's "word"? How can his intentions to use tribunals to prosecute "terrorists" be trusted, when he refuses to do gun checks on them!? Isn't there something very, very wrong with this picture? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/06/national/06GUNS.html

Fourth, how much weight should members of Congress give "public opinion polls" that "show" Americans support tribunals and other acts currently taken by Bush/Ashcroft against our civil liberties? Probably, the same weight one would give public opinion polls in Irag which indicate 90% of Iraqis support Saddam and his oppressive tactics. Or, the same credibility one would give opinion polls asking how much support Afghan women have for wearing burqas. Oppressive leaders know well that FEAR has been an effective means to control people, shape their "opinions," obtain "blind" unquestioning trust, and subjugate them to participate in their own oppression.

The current administration and corporate media know this well. But is it ever possible to fool people forever? http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,612354,00.html

At the hearing, Ashcroft attacked those who oppose tribunals for creating "fears." (The press, not missing an opportunity to create "confusion," made this into a story.)

As for accusing civil libertarians of "aiding the terrorists," who has more connections to the Taliban and oil?

These are the same PR tactics used during election 2000 to confuse voters and public. As tyrants have no intention of giving people want they need to gain their support, the only way to do so is with lies and propaganda campaigns (social-research based lies) that confuse the issues. They attack clarity and truth, knowing that these are the backbone for civil and human rights proponents.

Clarity and truth are our greatest hope. When these are muddied by attacks, it remains our job to keep them clean.

There is a distinct difference between running a fear based campaign for political gains and informing an otherwise "blindly trusting" public of deeply disturbing implications of the actions taken by this administration. Also, justifications for oppressive actions as "protections" are old arguments, commonly used to support slavery, and keep women and minorities economically dependent and disadvantaged.

Members of Congress must NOT be influenced by "public support" arguments. Instead, they must recognize the damage done by laws passed in the last decade that permitted corporate takeover of our press. Americans have been left in the dark--that should be a crime.

All public opinion polls at present are a mere reflection of how "powerful" the media has been, wrongfully playing with the minds of American citizens, in a particular "campaign." It is also common knowledge that public opinion polls can be swayed by the manner in which the questions are framed.

If free press is not restored, this would be a sad outcome for our country. If members of Congress do not wake up to restore free press, our democracy is in danger. Democracy cannot function without a free press, without dissent, without honest, investigative reporting. If we allow this perversity to continue, citizens of this country are in serious danger of being exploited by corporate agendas.

Finally, the question democrats and moderate republicans should ask in deciding whether to give the okay for military tribunals and other executive orders promoting "secrecy," is: What evidence is there that this administration cares one bit about "protecting" Americans, apart from giving them professionally polished lip service?

The answer is on record: NONE!

What we have instead is clear evidence to the contrary, a growing number of outrageous actions, particularly hurtful to working families, children, women. Meanwhile, the record shows a growing number of outrageous actions designed to increase the powers of big industries to hurt working families and the environment in the name of unlimited profits.

This is cause for concern.

Republicans argue that Bush's executive orders are justified because Clinton also exercised executive powers. Clinton's executive orders, however, were aimed at protecting the environment and working families from the harmful agendas of conservatives on either side of the aisle. In contrast, Bush's executive orders without exception have been attempts to create a Taliban-like hierarchical society in which only a few men have a say.

The more we learn about the agenda of this administration (and administrations past), and the extent to which they will go to further the interests of oil, war and drug profiteering, the clearer the picture becomes.

In "The Christmas Carol," Scrooge describes radical conservatives' disdain for working people best, "If they are going to die, let them do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Bush's executive orders are attacks on democracy. And the reason is clear: Democracy seems to pose the greatest threat to oil and war and drug profiteering.

Reports of connections between the Bush administration, oil and the Taliban are troubling. Military tribunals prevented Americans from knowing the truth about Hoover for decades. Who are currently proposed military tribunals really intended to protect?

One thing is certain. It would be foolish to again wait twenty or forty years to find the truth! The times we live is are far more dangerous. This could be the worst of times, returning civilization to the Dark Ages where, in the name of God, rulers' obsession with conformity led to endless witch hunts. Isn't that what the U.S. trained Taliban was about?

This could also be a new dawning of world peace in which leaders discipline their passions for glory and domination to attain what money cannot buy: inner peace and serenity.

May God awaken our leaders to set America on course to being peacemakers throughout the world.

Best wishes,

Tina Staik, MA

In Jesus' words, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons (and daughters) of God." Book of Matthew, Chapter 5