FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Lackawanna Six: Bogus Charges and Martial Law

by JAMES BOVARD

The New York Times reported last week that the Bush administration considered sending in the U.S. military to arrest the so-called “Lackawanna 6″ in 2002. It is appropriate that  was one of the biggest farces of the homefront legal war on terrorism was almost the cover for the most brazen power grabs.

The Lackawanna Six were a half dozen Yemeni-Americans from a Buffalo suburb who traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2001 and attended an Al Qaeda training camp.  Some members of the group asserted that they fled the camp after they heard appeals for violence against America.

After the six were arrested by the FBI and local police in September 2002, the Justice Department announced that it had “identified, investigated and disrupted an al-Qaeda-trained, terrorist cell on American soil.” President Bush hyped the arrests of an “al-Qaeda cell” in Buffalo in his State of the Union address a few months later.

While the president, the Justice Department,  and legions of federal officials speaking anonymously to the media touted the Lackawanna 6 as terrorists, the feds never dared make such a suggestion in court. Salon noted that “prosecutors never offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism.” A secret FBI report in early 2005 admitted: “To date, we have not identified any true ‘sleeper’ agents in the US” nor any “evidence of concealed cells or networks acting in the homeland as sleepers.”

But the feds did “persuade” the defendants to plead guilty to “material support of terrorism” – an amorphous charge that could mean something as simple as paying for their food at the camp.  The feds coerced the  plea bargain by threatening to label the men “enemy combatants” and send them to Guantanamo – and to charge them with treason, for which they could be executed.  Neal Sonnett, chairman of the American  Bar Association’s Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, observed:  “The [Lackawanna] defendants believed that if they didn’t plead guilty, they’d end up in a black hole forever. There’s little difference between beating someone over the head and making a threat like that.”

Georgetown University law professor David Cole commented: “It’s the first time in American history where people are going to prison for going to a training camp.”  Virginia lawyer and human rights activist Elaine Cassel commented: “The idea is, ‘Let’s go out and arrest people before they actually commit a crime, or even think of a crime.'”

The Bush team considered sending in the military in part because of the LACK OF evidence.  The New York Times noted that the Justice department was concerned “that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna.”  Vice President Cheney reportedly “argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.”

In other words, it should require less evidence to totally nullify all of a person’s rights (including the “right” not to be tortured) then required to  arrest someone on a felony charge.   This judicial philosophy keeps getting stranger and stranger.

Some Pentagon officials supported Cheney’s proposal to send in the troops to grab the Lackawanna Six.  Other administration officials objected, and Bush eventually decided to avoid the overt appearance of martial law for this roundup.

Cheney was invoking a secret memo from Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel’s John Yoo, who had written: “The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States.”

Since some of Yoo’s memos leaked out in recent years, we have heard that they are irrelevant because they were only academic type posturing.  But the New York Times article makes it clear that Cheney and others wanted to seize new powers and fundamentally change the nature of the United States.

This case illustrates how there are no idle pro-Leviathan legal errors. Instead, any such error is like a ticking time bomb – waiting to be exploded under the people’s rights and liberties.

But apologists for Bush insist that it would not have been a dictatorship because one lawyer in the Justice Department assured  Vice President Cheney that the White House was entitled to such power.  Supposedly, it only takes one weasel lawyer to nullify all the constitutional checks-and-balances accumulated over centuries.

Some Bush administration officials view using the military for the Lackawanna arrests as “testing the Constitution.”   In reality, it would have tested how much dictatorial power Americans would permit the Bush team to seize.  And the mainstream media might have raised scant protest.   As one wag quipped online: “If the tanks rolled down the streets on the same day the American Idol winner was named, you’d never even hear about the tanks.”

The Bush administration’s internal disputes over the Lackawanna arrests vivify how easily government can almost  totally slip the leash.   Unfortunately, the media and most Americans view Bush administration depredations as ancient history. But there is no reason to assume that the new rulers in Washington love power any less than their predecessors.

JAMES BOVARD serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation and is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail