Martial Law will soon be approved

[kitkat]

The defense bill that Congress had a majority of their members approve it will give our military the right to arrest, or detain anyone here in the U.S. that they view as a terroist. What this really means is stop the protestors and punish us for free speech which is no longer "free" in this country. Anyone complaining about our government betrayal of its citizens will be held in our prisons for as long as they want without even charging them with a crime. Why is this insanity being allowed to continue?

[CaptainPanic]

For all of us non-US-citizens, could you please provide some links so that we can read up on this shocking news?

[michel123456]

Is this the same info?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61841-habeas-corpus-is-on-its-death-bed/

 

That's what you get when you are in a state of war.

 

when President G. W. Bush introduced "war on terror", he virtually changed the civil rights into war rights. And they are quite different from each other. Now it is not virtually any more, it simply is.

[JustinW]

The defense bill that Congress had a majority of their members approve it will give our military the right to arrest, or detain anyone here in the U.S. that they view as a terroist. What this really means is stop the protestors and punish us for free speech which is no longer "free" in this country. Anyone complaining about our government betrayal of its citizens will be held in our prisons for as long as they want without even charging them with a crime. Why is this insanity being allowed to continue?

They would still have follow a certain criteria when labeling someone a terrorist. They can't just call someone a terrorist a detain them. I haven't heard of a protestor yet that has been labeled as a terrorist for speaking against the government.

 

when President G. W. Bush introduced "war on terror", he virtually changed the civil rights into war rights. And they are quite different from each other. Now it is not virtually any more, it simply is.

I don't recall this. Who's civil rights were changed back then? As I recall an enemy combatant being held by the U.S. has never had civil rights. We've always held prisoners of war without giving a specific detention time. As far as citizens that are labeled as terrorists, there would have to be evidence to back up the claim. Once there is sufficient evidence to support the claim then they should be treated as such.

[michel123456]

I don't recall this. Who's civil rights were changed back then? (...)

 

I din't go through this list. One is enough.

 

(...) As I recall an enemy combatant being held by the U.S. has never had civil rights. We've always held prisoners of war without giving a specific detention time. As far as citizens that are labeled as terrorists, there would have to be evidence to back up the claim. Once there is sufficient evidence to support the claim then they should be treated as such.

And they should go through trial. conventional trial, with lawyers and the whole stuff.

Imagine yourself walking nonchalant along the street wearing your new blue jacket and suddenly being arrested by an army officer just because a few seconds ago a suspected terrorist in blue jacket left a suspect bag near the entrance of the metro station. If you have no right for a phone call, if you have no right for a lawyer, if you can only shut up, bye bye Justin...

[JustinW]

That doesn't say anything about someone's civil rights being changed in the U.S. That was just a list of articles talking about human rights. Which can also be debated but I think might get us off subject. But as far as civil rights in the U.S., I don't think the recent war has done anything to go against them.

 

And they should go through trial. conventional trial, with lawyers and the whole stuff.

Imagine yourself walking nonchalant along the street wearing your new blue jacket and suddenly being arrested by an army officer just because a few seconds ago a suspected terrorist in blue jacket left a suspect bag near the entrance of the metro station. If you have no right for a phone call, if you have no right for a lawyer, if you can only shut up, bye bye Justin...

Name one incident where something like this has happened. An enemy combatant has never had a civil trial or civil rights. If someone is fighting for the other side why shouldn't they be treated as such?

[John Cuthber]

"They can't just call someone a terrorist a detain them. "

They did.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/terrorist-suspect-freed-by-court-order-20090907-feez.html

 

 

" If someone is fighting for the other side why shouldn't they be treated as such? "

The only evidence that they were doing so was that someone chose to " just call someone a terrorist 'enemy combatant' and detain them."

 

The phrase was made up to describe someone who they couldn't call a terrorist- because the law treats terrorists as criminals and offers them due process- and they couldn't call them a "prisoner of war" because, firstly no war was declared and secondly, prisoners of war have rights too.

They wanted to lock them up and torture them, but they had no legal (or evidential) basis for doing so.

 

BTW, Captain, I think it's related to this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61841-habeas-corpus-is-on-its-death-bed/page__p__641822__hl__%2Bland+%2Bfree__fromsearch__1#entry641822

Edited December 3, 2011 by John Cuthber

[ewmon]

Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever, for patriotism is indeed a double edged sword. It emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

~ Julius Caesar (attributed)

 

Similarly...

 

Of course the people don’t want war ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.

~ Field Marshal Herman Göring (Adolph Hitler’s second in command)

 

President G. W. Bush introduced "war on terror"

Yes, it was as though President Dimwit issued an arrest warrant with the name left blank.

[imatfaal]

That doesn't say anything about someone's civil rights being changed in the U.S. That was just a list of articles talking about human rights. Which can also be debated but I think might get us off subject. But as far as civil rights in the U.S., I don't think the recent war has done anything to go against them.Name one incident where something like this has happened.

 

In Hamdi v Rumsfeld the Supreme Court confirmed that the US was holding US Citizens in violation of Constitutional Rights - Scalia's dissent against the plurality's agreement that POTUS could elide some rights of US Citizens (but not HabCorp) is well worth a read - especially bearing in mind Scalia's hawkishness.

 

 

An enemy combatant has never had a civil trial or civil rights. If someone is fighting for the other side why shouldn't they be treated as such?

 

This case and another Rasul v Bush lead to the passing of The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) which was a deliberate further attempt to (re) oust civilian courts from Habeus Corpus hearings and leave the military commissions with sole jurisdiction .

 

This was tested in Hamdan v Rumsfeld

 

The meticulous and unflinching judgment by Justice Stevens devoid of rhetoric and clearly conscious of the need for utter clarity in the face of history – combined with the shorter and more concentrated concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy, and the support of Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, concluded that the military commission was not legally valid, was unauthorized by federal statute, and that it violated international law. In essence, the court confirmed that even within the 'war on terror' that "the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction"[1] and that the requirement of military necessity is not satisfied by the desire for political expediency.

 

[1] Hamdan Justice Stevens page 2798.

 

 

The Use of Military Commissions rather than properly constituted courts martial were also found to be in violation of the international law of war and a breach of geneva convention rights - and that the removal of GC rights was not valid.

"But fairness is not weakness. Theextraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute to our strength"– Nuremburg

Justice Robert H Jackson (as US Counsel) in his concluding remarks at the trial of Rudolf Hess at the Nuremburg Trials. page 398.

http://www.yale.edu/...oc/07-26-46.htm

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

As ewmon wrote (post #8) In the past, the rights of people went up and down. In times of crisis, people gladly give up their rights for a sense of security.

 

Terrorism will always exist (it always has existed), and our leaders have found a way to scare us with it. Again. And that's the core of the problem. It's brilliant, actually: we're scared of a rather insignificant threat (terrorism really doesn't kill as many people as many diseases, or as traffic, both of which also kill at random). But this idea is also as old as Rome.

 

I see only 1 way out of this problem: we must understand the significance of the threats that are facing us. We may hope for an objective leader after the next elections, but we cannot reasonably expect that each and every leader is objective and wants the best for the country. We must expect that at some point, an idiot will take power, and will want to "whip the citizenry into a patriotic fever" (to quote old Julius Caesar).

 

I fear that education is the only weapon against such crazy leaders... and we're a long way off from a citizenry that is (on average) sufficiently educated to think for itself individually.

[JustinW]

"They can't just call someone a terrorist a detain them. "

They did.

http://www.smh.com.a...90907-feez.html

 

Let me explain the reson for making this comment. I meant that they wouldn't label someone as a terrorist without having a reason. I was unaware of the cases like this in other countries. We were commenting on U.S. law, and as far as I know there have been no such cases in the U.S.

 

The only evidence that they were doing so was that someone chose to " just call someone a terrorist 'enemy combatant' and detain them."

It seems this is wrong. They didn't just call him a terrorist, they had connections between people he knew that were extremists. They seemed to have a reason even if they didn't tell the public what those reasons were. So I don't think it's fair to say that they just call someone a terrorist. It makes it sound like governments are just pulling people off the streets at random.

 

Ah, imatfaal I concede and stand corrected. But I will also have to say that a prisoners rights are still in the hands of the captor. Just because most countries try to follow international law doesn't mean that everyone does.

 

Terrorism will always exist (it always has existed), and our leaders have found a way to scare us with it. Again. And that's the core of the problem. It's brilliant, actually: we're scared of a rather insignificant threat (terrorism really doesn't kill as many people as many diseases, or as traffic, both of which also kill at random). But this idea is also as old as Rome.

I'm not sure I agree with this one Captain. Just because more people die of other things doesn't mean we need to ignore terrorism as an "insignificant" problem. When someone declares war on you or your country I think it is a problem that needs to be adressed and taken seriously. If previous presidents here in the states had taken a tougher stance on terrorism in the past, we probably could have avoided as big a cotastrophy as 9-11. By treating terrorism as an act of war instead of a criminal act, we can use better resources and make a stronger stance in preventing future attacks that may be as bad , if not worse, than 9-11.

[iNow]

I'm not sure I agree with this one Captain. Just because more people die of other things doesn't mean we need to ignore terrorism as an "insignificant" problem.

The argument is hardly to "ignore" it. It's merely to avoid the unwarranted anxiety and extreme focus at the expense of other efforts and improvements we could make if we weren't so undeniably distracted by it.

 

When viewed from a higher level, we've all sacrificed a great deal of our personal liberty and freedom (which is a huge cost to all of us) under the guise of being safer and more secure (which is a relatively tiny benefit, in context of the numbers and impact).

 

 

 

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

~Abraham Lincoln

 

 

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[imatfaal]

Let me explain the reson for making this comment. I meant that they wouldn't label someone as a terrorist without having a reason. I was unaware of the cases like this in other countries. We were commenting on U.S. law, and as far as I know there have been no such cases in the U.S.

 

It seems this is wrong. They didn't just call him a terrorist, they had connections between people he knew that were extremists. They seemed to have a reason even if they didn't tell the public what those reasons were. So I don't think it's fair to say that they just call someone a terrorist. It makes it sound like governments are just pulling people off the streets at random.

/snipped

 

Justin - but one of the important parts of law-making is the principle that protection of the citizen from the power of the state should not be left to the probity and good nature of the holders of power. It is not enough to say that "but our police/government/intelligence agencies would never do that sort of thing" - it is essential that they are prevented from doing it by the power of the law through the mediation of the courts.

 

As an example of the danger of hidden evidence and relying on the good offices of the security services: If you read up on the the guantanamo habeas corpus cases you will find that in quite a few cases that the evidence was withheld (even from the accused!), and that lawyers were barred. If you read some of the amicus curiae it becomes clear the reason for this was that a forensic examination of evidence (as American Civil courts do as well as anywhere in the world) would tear gaping holes in the case. As an example - I remember a case in which the accused was finally given a navy lawyer, the navy lawyer (to his eternal credit) thoroughly checked the evidence he was allowed to see - the bulk of the evidence was the accused relationship with a fairly dodgy character in Germany - it rapidly became clear that the dodgy character merely shared the same name with the accused's uncle who had been dead for 15 years. when this was explained the military commission threw the case out straight away. the accused was allowed to return to his home after being detained at guantanamo for over 5 years. it is this testing of evidence that is essential to avoid arbitrary punishment

 

Unfortunately you have to ask yourself this question whenever the government claims that evidence is too secret to be published - is the evidence too secret or is it too weak?

[michel123456]

Let me explain the reson for making this comment. I meant that they wouldn't label someone as a terrorist without having a reason. I was unaware of the cases like this in other countries. We were commenting on U.S. law, and as far as I know there have been no such cases in the U.S.

 

It seems this is wrong. They didn't just call him a terrorist, they had connections between people he knew that were extremists. They seemed to have a reason even if they didn't tell the public what those reasons were. So I don't think it's fair to say that they just call someone a terrorist. It makes it sound like governments are just pulling people off the streets at random.

 

Ah, imatfaal I concede and stand corrected. But I will also have to say that a prisoners rights are still in the hands of the captor. Just because most countries try to follow international law doesn't mean that everyone does.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this one Captain. Just because more people die of other things doesn't mean we need to ignore terrorism as an "insignificant" problem. When someone declares war on you or your country I think it is a problem that needs to be adressed and taken seriously. If previous presidents here in the states had taken a tougher stance on terrorism in the past, we probably could have avoided as big a cotastrophy as 9-11. By treating terrorism as an act of war instead of a criminal act, we can use better resources and make a stronger stance in preventing future attacks that may be as bad , if not worse, than 9-11.

All well. When you are under attack, you have the right to defend yourself.

But there is no reason to refuse this same right from the people you arrest. They also have the right to defend themselves, legally, with a lawyer and a court trial. Even the Nazis had that right. (Godwin I saw you smiling, don't say a word!)

[JustinW]

When viewed from a higher level, we've all sacrificed a great deal of our personal liberty and freedom (which is a huge cost to all of us) under the guise of being safer and more secure (which is a relatively tiny benefit, in context of the numbers and impact).

 

If I've given up any personal freedoms as a result of terrorism and our policies concerning terrorism, then I haven't noticed. I believe we have given up more of our freedoms through policies that have dealt with other subjects, far more than we have as a result of our terror policies. Policies are always made that infringe on our liberties and freedoms for the so called "greater good". But I personally have felt no affect on my freedom as a result of our anti-terrorism policies. Or at least not yet. Things always have a way of getting out of hand I suppose. I guess you could argue that point by looking at airport security and such, and you would have me there. But we should be judging every other policy in the same way. Those that are supposed to be for our protection as a whole, we need to ask ourselves if the end result is a good enough reason to give up our liberties.

 

Justin - but one of the important parts of law-making is the principle that protection of the citizen from the power of the state should not be left to the probity and good nature of the holders of power. It is not enough to say that "but our police/government/intelligence agencies would never do that sort of thing" - it is essential that they are prevented from doing it by the power of the law through the mediation of the courts.

 

As an example of the danger of hidden evidence and relying on the good offices of the security services: If you read up on the the guantanamo habeas corpus cases you will find that in quite a few cases that the evidence was withheld (even from the accused!), and that lawyers were barred. If you read some of the amicus curiae it becomes clear the reason for this was that a forensic examination of evidence (as American Civil courts do as well as anywhere in the world) would tear gaping holes in the case. As an example - I remember a case in which the accused was finally given a navy lawyer, the navy lawyer (to his eternal credit) thoroughly checked the evidence he was allowed to see - the bulk of the evidence was the accused relationship with a fairly dodgy character in Germany - it rapidly became clear that the dodgy character merely shared the same name with the accused's uncle who had been dead for 15 years. when this was explained the military commission threw the case out straight away. the accused was allowed to return to his home after being detained at guantanamo for over 5 years. it is this testing of evidence that is essential to avoid arbitrary punishment

 

Unfortunately you have to ask yourself this question whenever the government claims that evidence is too secret to be published - is the evidence too secret or is it too weak?

I see your point. It does seem obsurred to hold someone so long when evidence was at hand and facts were obvious that the man was in custody for the wrong reasons. Edited December 5, 2011 by JustinW

[iNow]

If I've given up any personal freedoms as a result of terrorism and our policies concerning terrorism, then I haven't noticed.

Yes, I've learned that personal incredulity is one of the best forms of argumentation. Well played, sir.

[John Cuthber]

Terrorism is just crime.

If you blow stuff up that's a crime- criminal damage or causing an explosion or whatever.

The person who did it has a mistake in their mind that causes them to believe it's the right thing to do.

The same with murder. It doesn't matter if you do it "in the name of (Insert cause here)" or what.

 

If the media stopped glorifying it with a special title I suspect it would lose some of its appeal. That would probably reduce the incidence.

Also I'm not sure if the bizarre things that various governments have done in the name of combating terrorism are doing more harm than good.

I can't say for certain that it's done to scare the people, but it sure looks that way. It has a lot in common with the "war on drugs".

The only way to get close to "winning" is to sacrifice all your freedom.

BTW, Justin

"If I've given up any personal freedoms as a result of terrorism and our policies concerning terrorism, then I haven't noticed."

At the trivial end of the scale, you have given up the right to board an aircraft without taking your shoes and socks off first.

As an amateur chemist I now can't buy some chemicals because it's assumed that anyone who wants them is a terrorist.

If all you wanted to do was sit at home, watch TV; play football, and vote the same way your dad did then OK, you haven't lost anything.

[JustinW]

Terrorism is just crime.

If you blow stuff up that's a crime- criminal damage or causing an explosion or whatever.

The person who did it has a mistake in their mind that causes them to believe it's the right thing to do.

The same with murder. It doesn't matter if you do it "in the name of (Insert cause here)" or what.

I would agree with you on this if it were an individual or select few that do the act. It is not the case with the current "War on Terror". This is several organizations, who themselves make a declaration of war against people of certain countries, ethnisities, and religions, who have a certain goal in mind. Just because they do not have the man power and resources that we do as a whole they have to revert to tactics we classify as acts of terror. If they did have the capabilities and man power to engage us in a more frontal way, I am pretty certain they would. So with that being the case I would not classify that as only criminal but also as an act of war.

 

If the media stopped glorifying it with a special title I suspect it would lose some of its appeal. That would probably reduce the incidence.

I don't see your point here. I don't remember the media glorifying terrorism before 9-11 and that was definitely an escalation of violence.

 

Also I'm not sure if the bizarre things that various governments have done in the name of combating terrorism are doing more harm than good.

I can't say for certain that it's done to scare the people, but it sure looks that way. It has a lot in common with the "war on drugs".

The only way to get close to "winning" is to sacrifice all your freedom.

I'm going to have to give this one some thought. I can't say I agree completely, but I also do not disagree.

 

At the trivial end of the scale, you have given up the right to board an aircraft without taking your shoes and socks off first.

As an amateur chemist I now can't buy some chemicals because it's assumed that anyone who wants them is a terrorist.

If all you wanted to do was sit at home, watch TV; play football, and vote the same way your dad did then OK, you haven't lost anything.

I can understand and half heartedly agree with you. This is what I was saying before in my previous post about having to decide if the precieved outcome is worth giving up our freedoms( or convenience on the lower end of the spectrum) to avoid.

And my father didn't vote, but he sure had a loud opinion that I only agreed with 50% of the time.

 

edited for spelling

Edited December 5, 2011 by JustinW

[MichaelPenn]

The power you reference has been around since 2001 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution. Additionally, "All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens though there is debate over the wording of 'requirement' in the revision under section 1032." Also found this: After signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

 

So, how can you be up-in-arms against such provisions in the NDAA, when the ability to execute these exact actions has been around since 2001? Furthermore, do you really think that the United States government is going to walk around and just wildly pick up American citizens, without real cause, hold them 'indefinitely,' and never file charges? Do you realize what the backlash / repercussions of this would be? You need to realize that the government is going to act with reason and tact when handling something like this. They're not going to just mass-imprison a million people next week.

[kitkat]

The power you reference has been around since 2001 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution. Additionally, "All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens though there is debate over the wording of 'requirement' in the revision under section 1032." Also found this: After signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

 

So, how can you be up-in-arms against such provisions in the NDAA, when the ability to execute these exact actions has been around since 2001? Furthermore, do you really think that the United States government is going to walk around and just wildly pick up American citizens, without real cause, hold them 'indefinitely,' and never file charges? Do you realize what the backlash / repercussions of this would be? You need to realize that the government is going to act with reason and tact when handling something like this. They're not going to just mass-imprison a million people next week.

 

Since when does our government act with reason and tact when handling anything, maybe in the past but definitely not in the last 50 years. Since we already have 2001 authorization to use military force then why was it necessary to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012? The reason is deception since it can be changed to include american citizens without the public being aware that it was changed by congress at a later time. As soon as the protestors begin again in the spring or if any other new group emerges that compromises their ability to support themselves and decides to fight our government, that bill will include american citizens with a simple word change in the document.

[CaptainPanic]

[...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."[...]

At least Obama has the wisdom to note that future administrations might abuse this law. He only states what his administration will do. And that may be for the next year only, if one of those republican idiots who are running for president wins.

[dimreepr]

The defense bill that Congress had a majority of their members approve it will give our military the right to arrest, or detain anyone here in the U.S. that they view as a terroist. What this really means is stop the protestors and punish us for free speech which is no longer "free" in this country. Anyone complaining about our government betrayal of its citizens will be held in our prisons for as long as they want without even charging them with a crime. Why is this insanity being allowed to continue?

 

Terrorism is the excuse western society is using to terrorise it's own Citizens into accepting more and more draconian rules.

[JustinW]

Since when does our government act with reason and tact when handling anything, maybe in the past but definitely not in the last 50 years. Since we already have 2001 authorization to use military force then why was it necessary to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012? The reason is deception since it can be changed to include american citizens without the public being aware that it was changed by congress at a later time. As soon as the protestors begin again in the spring or if any other new group emerges that compromises their ability to support themselves and decides to fight our government, that bill will include american citizens with a simple word change in the document.

kitkat, I think this is wild speculation at best. I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner. The more of them you put down the more that will be on the streets the next morning. I believe those in power know that no matter what side of the aisle they're standing on.

[ydoaPs]

kitkat, I think this is wild speculation at best. I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner.

You must not have been paying attention.

[Phi for All]

kitkat, I think this is wild speculation at best. I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner. The more of them you put down the more that will be on the streets the next morning. I believe those in power know that no matter what side of the aisle they're standing on.

Are you kidding? All it took to turn a good size portion of people against the Occupy Wall Street protesters was to imply that they were littering the park they used as their base. As soon as the peaceful protesters became dirty, filthy, law-breaking litterers, there wasn't as much of an outcry when the police got rough with them on the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

Spinning the story to get the protesters away from your Burger King or Burlington Coat Factory store front is MUCH easier when you also own all the Clear Channel radio stations. You could probably even get the American public behind invading a sovereign nation if you paint the protesters as terrorists.