Islamic View On Treaties

Abu Tariq

Posted by Islamic Revival at Friday, February 23, 2007

Treaties in Islam

The following is a useful article written by a brother some time ago. It is especially relavent now due to the ongoing peace process in order to legitimise the illegal Israeli state.

In 1979, the Egyptian regime signed a peace treaty with Israel. In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization signed an interim peace treaty with Israel. A year later following these pacts, Jordan’s monarch signed a peace treaty with Israel. A peace treaty between the Syrian, Lebanese, and Israeli regimes is imminent and will be signed some time this year. These are events that carry deep ramifications for the Muslim Ummah. The Muslims need to take a stand against the regimes forging these treaties. This stand must be based on a comprehension of the Hukm Shar’ii (Islamic verdict) regarding peace treaties, especially those signed with Israel. Similarly, our feelings towards these treaties (whether to like or dislike, disapprove or approve) should be established upon this verdict.

Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “Whoever is pleased with the good is like the one who does it. Whoever is pleased with the evil is like the one who does it.”

This ruling should serve as the basis for our actions regarding these treaties. Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “He who witnesses an evil should change it by his hand. If he cannot, he should change it by his tongue. If he cannot, he should change it by his heart.”

To derive the ruling of Islam on peace treaties with Israel, an overview of Islam’s System for International Treaties is presented and within that framework the ruling on peace treaties is explained.

The legal code of Islam, the Shari’ah, considers international treaties to be a special section of contracts since they are nothing but a contractual agreement between two or more states that regulates some aspects of their relations. Therefore, for the most part, the standard regulation of contracts apply to international treaties. The texts of the Qur’an & Sunnah proves that Islam permits the establishment of international treaties. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:

"If they incline to cease fighting, accept that from them and put your faith in Allah." [Al Anfal 8, 61]

If they (Muslims outside the Islamic State) seek your support, then lend them your support, save against those nations you have a treaty with. [Al Anfal 8, 72]

Treaties have to satisfy specific legal conditions for them to be considered valid. There are three kinds of conditions:

A) The key components of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions renders the treaty null and void as is the case in any regular contract):

1 - The parties to the treaty (two or more states).
2 - The subject matter of the treaty
(regulation of commerce, cease-fire).
3 - The text of the treaty.
(e.g., in the treaty of Hudaybiah, the parties to the treaty were the Islamic state and the state of Quraysh; the subject matter was a cease-fire for 10 years etc.; and the text was ratified by the statement: “This is what Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah agreed upon with Suheil bin Amir... etc.”).

Thus, a treaty where the subject matter does not exist at the time of ratifying it is void, e.g. a treaty to regulate commercial travel in space shuttles.

B) The primary conditions of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions nullifies the treaty):

1 - The parties to the agreement should have the authority to resolve and regulate the subject matter of the treaty. Therefore, the Islamic state cannot agree with another state to annex a region unless that state controlled the region under consideration. An unauthorized individual cannot enter a treaty on behalf of his state (e.g., ‘Arafat and his PLO were not authorized to represent the Ummah or enter a treaty with Israel. Whatever they agreed upon is null & void)

2 - The agreement should be the result of free will, untainted with cheating (e.g., false maps) or duress. The only exception to that is cease-fire agreements which by definition contain an element of duress but are valid nevertheless.

3 - The subject matter of the treaty must be existent and legal. It is Haram to regulate the trade of a Haram matter (e.g. Khamr). In the case at hand, ‘Arafat’s peace treaty with Israel, which includes acceptance of its sovereignty over parts of Palestine is void since its subject matter is Haram.

Allah says: “And evict them from wherever they have evicted you.” [Al Baqarah 2, 191]

4 - Other primary conditions of regular contracts such as the existence of a mutual and simultaneous agreement to the treaty.

C) The secondary conditions of the treaty (the absence of any of these conditions can but does not necessarily void the treaty):

1 - No treaty can be established with another state which is in a state of war with the Muslims, other than a cease-fire treaty, since a treaty implies the sanctity of life and property of the state’s (the state that the Khilafah is in war with) citizens, a contradiction to the laws of war that would be in effect. However, following the materialization of a cease-fire treaty, other kinds of treaties can be established with that state.

2 - A new treaty cannot contradict an already established treaty. The state has a duty to honor its obligations under existing treaties. Entering new treaties which undermine existing treaties would constitute reneging on an obligation, which is Haram. Allah says:

“And honor your obligations towards Me, so I would honor my obligations towards you, and fear none but Me.” [Al Baqarah 2, 40]

and, “O you who believe, honor your contracts.” [Al Ma’idah 5, 1]

Any such treaty is void. Applying that to the peace treaties poses a new problem. When the Islamic State under ‘Umar bin Al Khattab conquered Al Quds it gave a commitment, upon their request, to the original inhabitants to prohibit the Jews from residing in Al Quds. Therefore, any treaty allowing the Jews to reside there (the PLO’s treaty grants them a right to the western part of Al Quds de jure) would be null and void.

3 - The text of the treaty must be detailed enough to alleviate any anticipated disagreements on the subject matter. Therefore, treaties cannot be equivocal. Allah says:

“Do not use your oaths as a way to deceive each other.” [An Nahl 16, 94]

This does not mean that the state is allowed to engage in maneuvering. The state can maneuver but must not use bogus treaties as a tool in these maneuvers.

4 - The treaty should satisfy a specific objective in the state’s foreign policy. It should advance the goal of Islam’s foreign policy: Carrying the Islamic Da’wah. While this can be a subjective call, the Ummah has the right to take the Khalifah to task in demonstrating how a treaty satisfies this condition. If the treaty is not designed to meet foreign policy goals, the treaty is annulled. The peace treaties do not achieve in any conceivable way these objectives. The objective of attaining the goals of Da’wah is not present in a treaty that protects the borders of Israel, subdues the people in and around Palestine and guarantees the integration of Israel in the region as these treaties stipulate.

5 - The treaty cannot include any illegal terms. Rasoolillah (saaw) says: “The Muslims abide by their conditions except for a condition that makes an illegal issue legal or makes a legal issue illegal.” [reported by Tirmidhi in his Sunan]. Should Muslims accept such a condition under duress, they have to renounce it as soon as they can. Otherwise, the condition is disregarded but the rest of the treaty remains in force.

6 - Treaties should be written in Arabic as it is the state’s medium of expression, instruction, & correspondence. Rasoolillah (saaw) used Arabic in his letters to other heads of states who were not versed in Arabic. The fact that he (saaw) did so, while there was a need to use other languages, proves that the Arabic language is the state’s language and must be used in the conduct of official state business. Violating this condition does not void the treaty, since it has no bearing on the textual substance & objectives of the treaty per se, but it is Haram for those individuals responsible for the violation. This condition can only be waived under imperative situations.

In addition, the treaty must have a time limit. Tabari reports the consensus of scholars on this matter in his book “Al Jihad” page 14. Permanent treaties and semi-permanent treaties (treaties for exceedingly long time intervals, e.g. 99 years) are Haram.

Allah says: “Allah and his Messenger (saaw) renounce those Mushrikeen you had treaties with. So (grant them) a four-month grace period.” [At Tawbah, 1, 2]

This was in reference to those Kafireen with whom the Muslims had open-ended treaties. This verse nullifies these kinds of treaties. Furthermore, the lack of a specific time frame for a treaty rules out the conduct of Jihad in the territory covered by this treaty. However, Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “Jihad continues until the Day Of Judgment.” For example, the cease-fire and peace treaties with Israel are illegal since they are not bound by a time limit.

Based on this overview, it can be seen that Islam defines an international treaty as a temporary agreement between the Islamic state and other states to regulate a lawful aspect of their relations. The Shari’ah explicates the principles and conditions applicable to this relationship. The Islamic state can freely enter a cease-fire, good neighbor, non-aggression, and neutrality treaties with other states. Rasoolillah (saaw) had a cease fire treaty with the Quraysh state; a good neighbor treaty with the Jewish statelets around Madinah; non-aggression treaties with several entities such as the city-state of Eylah; and a neutrality treaty with Bani Dumerah.
The following are some treaties that are Haram and the Muslims cannot be privy to or part of them and should any of they are automatically null and void.

1 - Treaties establishing permanent borders for the Islamic state. These treaties either allow for the existence of more than one Muslim state (if Islam is being applied on both sides of the borders) or arrests Jihad (if Kufr and Islam share these borders). Rasoolillah (saaw) said: “If two Khalifahs are given allegiance then kill the second of them.” [Muslim, section of ‘Imarah].Therefore, the Muslims cannot have more than one ruler and one state. On the other hand, Allah says: “Fight those Kafireen who reside on your borders.” No ideology can recognize borders. An ideology is dynamic in its existence, as opposed to static, & it either expands or shrinks.

2 - Military alliances.

3 - Treaties on leasing or giving access to naval ports, air force bases and military roads to Kafir armies. Allah says: “Allah will not grant the Kuffar authority over Muslims.” Such treaties give the Kuffar authority over Muslim lands and a share of authority over Muslims themselves. This is the new face of colonialism.

4 - All the current peace treaties with Israel. This is so for the following reasons:
i) These treaties are being conducted by individuals who are not legal representatives of the Ummah and thus their actions in enacting these treaties are null;
ii) The treaties have a Haram subject (recognizing the usurpation of Muslim lands and accepting the eviction of Muslims from their lands).
iii) These treaties are supposed to mark a definitive end to war & they have no time limit. While an open-ended cease-fire is Haram, these treaties amount to more than that, such as their clauses on normalization of relations with Israel.
iv) The treaties are an oppressively clear infringement upon the rights and interests of Muslims. They also run against the interests of Islam and the goals of the foreign policy in Islam.
v) In particular, ‘Arafat’s treaty contradicts the ‘Umari treaty on Al Quds, a standing treaty which the Muslims must honor & which is currently being trampled on. It is Haram to accept, approve or be pleased with these treaties.
The Muslims should present the Islamic point of view in this regard. The Muslim Ummah should follow the events and establish opinions based on the Islamic texts.

Keith Ellison, Islam & Terrorism (A Letter)

Note bene: As of 21 September 2013 Mr. Ellison has failed to respond to this letter.

2321 South 82 Street

West Allis, WI 53219-1735

(414) 545-1884

<jamespawlak1@yahoo.com>

10 March 2011 [5 Raby' al-THaany, 1432 A.H.]

Congressman Keith Ellison

1027 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-2305

Dear Mr. Ellison:
This note, with the definition below, is being sent to you in response to your presumed claim to be a “Moderate Muslim” as per your appearance on the “Bill O'Reilly Show” of this date. If you are indeed such a person, then you will have no problems falling within the definition of “Moderate Muslim” given below.

“MODERATE MUSLIM” DEFINED

1.A person who makes a very public proclamation that s/he is a Muslim along with giving out his/her name, address, occupation and place of employment.
2.A a person who then makes a very public OR on-oath rejection and condemnation of all of the teachings within the Koran, Hadith, Sharia and other Islamic teachings which allow or encourage, and sometimes command, the use of murder (eg Killing anyone who “insults” Mohammed or the Koran), rape and enslavement, genocide (eg Killing all Jews), perpetual war with “unbelievers” until they submit to Islam, lying to and stealing from such “unbelievers” and the very inferior legal and social status given by Islam to all “unbelievers” and all women.
3.A person who then demands that all such teachings be stricken and removed from the Islamic texts noted above.
4.A person who then very publicly inks-out of a copy of the an all those verses which support the above noted, inhumane and anti-civilization acts.

Of course, you would be much more believable, as to your claim of being a “Moderate Muslim” if you would very publicly state the historical truths that Mohammed of Mecca and Medina was a murderer, bandit, liar and treaty-breaker and the sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child.

Now, are you a “Moderate Muslim” or a standard-and-dangerous follower of the ideology called Islam with all of its differences in teachings from the Faiths of the Jews, Christians, Baha'i and Sikhs?

Curiously yours,

James Pawlak

The Politician Protection Act Of 20XX

Whereas many elected and appointed and elected officers and officials have been exercising their often armed power to attack the rights of citizens as stated in the "Bill Of Rights".
Whereas many of those persons live in places where many citizens remember: The causes and effects of the "Declaration Of Independence"; The content and original intent of the "Constitution Of The United States" as to both its separation-of-powers and rights-and-powers of the States and the People.
Whereas many such places are populated by citizens who are heavily armed with fire arms and recall the advise of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as to the civic value of guns in protection of their liberties.Therefore, the "Protection Of Officials Act Of 20YY" is enacted.
1. All copies of the Declaration Of Independence,  The Bill Of Rights and all statements by Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison as to guns are to be removed from all public records, any publication of their contents to be punished by life imprisonment-at-hard-labor and loss of all civil rights.
2. The crime of "Violation Of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" is to be abolished as are the rights to council, reasonable bail and a jury trial as to any violations of this Act.
3. No citizen other than police officers under strict political control shall have any firearms in their possession in the United States; Members of the Armed Forces will be allowed firearms only: When inside the confines of military bases and under the armed-and-direct supervision of civilian officials; And, when outside of the political borders of the United States.
4. Any armed resistance to the civilian authorities of the United States is defined as "Treason" and shall be punished by death for the offender and by loss of civil rights for her/his immediate family and that by order of any court/tribunal and without appeal.
==================================================================================================================

NOTES

A. From President George Washington: "The very atmosphere of firearms any where and every where restrains evil interference---they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
         "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance, they are the peoples' liberty teeth."
B. From President Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
        "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
C. From President James Madison: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid
to trust the people with arms."

Guns & Founding Fathers

Gerorge Washington: “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restains evil interference---they deserve a place of honor with all that is good”

       “Firearms are second only to the the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth”.

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”.

       “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

James Madison: “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being arms which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”.

       “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun”.

Obama Supports Jihad

Mr. Obama was willing to send F-16s and our most modern armored vehicles to Egypt as long as the Muslim Brotherhood, supporters of violent JIhad against the USA,  all Christians (Most specially the Copts in Egypt)  other civilized peoples/nations, were in control of that nation.  Now that that terrorist-organization is out-of-power, his Administration is retreating from support for the Egyptian military, the only force capable of providing order, other than than inflicted by the followers of jihad, in that nation.

While the civil war in Syria was in doubt AND when there were revolutionaries there who were not controlled by Jihad supporting Islamists, Mr. Obama's Administration was unwilling to ship weapons to rebels. Now that there is a chance that the present and legal government may be overthrown AND revolutionary groups appear to be in control of Muslim terrorists, he may ship them such weapons (Including AA rockets which could easily bring down one of our air liners, over an American city).

Any Administration "excuse" that such a halt is only in obedience to a law prohibiting such shipments to, in this case Egypt, does not stand up to the many instances in which Mr. Obama and his co-actors have refused to obey-and-enforce other democratically enacted laws.

                                                  

REFERENCE:  Constitution Of The United States; Section-III, Article-3

The Base Of Real Universities: Western Christianity

A new academic year is rushing at us. At such a time and during a period of great national division we should consider the roots of our schools, universities and Western civilization .

All real universities [Which excludes institutions focused on only religion/ideology and a very few schools devoted to the education of past ( Roman) and current (eg Schools run by DOD) military leaders ] are based on the model developed by the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Out of Theology schools came Law schools, Philosophy (Later "Natural Philosophy" which became "Sciences")   Anyone attempting to go through the intense logic of medieval scholars will have some understanding of the very exact examination of every detain of every proposition given by such great minds---The same method should be, but too often fails, to be applied by today's professors/teachers, legislators, officials and journalists. No other culture/civilization gave the World such an inheritance as became our great universities.

In other parts of the World (eg Japan) any real universities are but copies of that Church generated-and-developed model.

In regions ruled by Muslims and governed under Sharia and the Koran there are few such schools and them under such ongoing attacks as ended Islam's  "Golden Age" in Iberia and a few other places (C) by Islam's regression to its basic positions against such thinking as is beyond what is in the Koran, the Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohammed) and the writings of a few, very orthodox, Islamist jurists.

In the USA lower level schools were first established by Protestant religious groups and only later made public schools. Catholics, who did not approve of the very Protestant bias of those public schools formed up their own schools. They were followed by Jews and other Christians (And, others?).  Those, largely New England, Protestants were the same or from the same roots as led the drive against the physical slavery of Blacks. [The ending of such slavery was accomplished only by force applied by governments (eg The armed acts of the US and Royal Navy and the bloodiest war every fought by the USA, being the "War Between The States") or by such individuals as Rev.. Henry Ward Beecher.

In many Muslim dominated nations the Islamists' bias against thinking-and-schools is matched by an approval and practice [ Even in the USA] of physical slavery as it is approved by the Koran and other teachings of Islam ].

I cannot but wonder if the well-reported failings  our Universities and other schools is a result of a falling away from those Christian principles of intense-logic, in-public debate and "thinking" as so well demonstrated by the early Christian-Catholic universities and carried over to the early public-and-private schools of our Republic. [Catholics should specially consider that the shrinking  of their schools seems to be concurrent with, if not caused by, their falling away from that inheritance and from orthodoxy. [The morphing of once "Catholic" universities to basically secular, sometimes anti-Catholic, schools appears to be the result of the same offense---Especially at "Jesuit" schools.]

Scientific Questions: Old & New

Are Sub-Atomic Particles Real?

With the activation of the newest high-energy particle accelerator I again wonder if all of the many claimed sub-atomic particles are, in fact, separate entities or merely the same entity at different energy levels and viewed by different observational methods.

Another way of putting this, is the pantheon of such particles only the theology of physics' equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

No doubt that the high priests of physics will defend their well paying positions by punishing such heretics as myself as their counter-parts did to those who doubted the religion of global warming.

Ideas On Mobius Strip Research

The Moebius Strip, so beloved of those mathematicians called "topologists", has some curious applications in the field of electronics being used to produce a superior resistor not subject to high-frequency interference (1). This causes me to wonder what other applications might be had for that most particular form (A strip with only one side and one edge).

Chemists have even converted molecules into this curious form (2), which makes me wonder what the effect on such manipulating would be as to drugs, fuels, explosives, etc.

What would be the effects of a plastic-explosive in that shape? This should be tested with one strip detonated by various means and at various points. The same should be tested for various combinations of such strips AND both as a primary explosive and as an initiator.

Moebius strips, in various metals and combinations, should be tested under various conditions of electric and electronic excitement at various temperatures down to that of liquid Nitrogen.

I will leave it to your imagination as to other possible ways of looking into the properties of this unique shape.

Of course, as a reader of science-fiction, I note the following possibilities:
1. The tested strip could explode at nuclear or anti-matter levels;
2. Such could merely wink out of existence (In this universe);
3. It could create a "black hole" which would “eat up" our world;
4. It could open a portal into a star with the expected effect on our world;
5. Other negative effects left to your imagination.

On the other hand, such testing might lead to:
1. A cheap and reliable source of electrical energy superior to any now in existence.
2. Practical "anti-gravity" and quick inter-stellar travel;
3. A method of dumping our toxic wastes "somewhere else"; And,
4. Other positive benefits not listed here.

Anyone knowing of pending research as to the Moebius Strip is asked to contact me. THANKS!

Speed Of Light & The "Telepathic Twin" Study

      There is a common Science Fiction theme with two telepathic twins, one staying on the Earth and the other leaving on a space-ship. The result, in those stories, is that one twin aging at a rate much different than the other.
       This is a different set of conditions than the usual "clock in orbit" experiment where time-and-space are much more constricted than the SF story. These stories assume that telepathic communications are not limited by the speed-of-light.
      Now, what I have wondered is would a reversal through time-and-space of the traveler reverse the time differential or double it?
       This is speculation. But, are there any relevant experiments (As are "reliable and valid" with a high "level of confidence")?

=====================================================================

                    Is “String Theory” Science Or Faith?

From my very long-ago education as to the “Scientific Method” I must ask: Is “String Theory” subject to validation by experimental means (“Reliable & Valid” with a “High Level Of Confidence”

======================================================================

Definition of ineffable in English (Adjective ) too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words----(OR mathematical terms?) [eg God]

========================================================================

Eric Holder Vs. Guns: WHY?

Why as the USA's Attorney General Eric Holder come out so strongly against State laws enabling citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves and innocent others from criminal attacks?

One possible reason is that every criminal "put down"  by such citizen-actions is one less likely supporter of the Democrat Party and its "Nanny State" policies.

You might ask yourself why the primary target of that Party's anti-gun position are those weapons (ie Semi-automatic firearms with police-level magazine capacities) which are most useful in defense against the tyranny of "common criminals"---And, tyrannical governments.

Islam, JIhad & Treason

1. True believing Muslims consider the words and commands of the Koran as from their Allah, which cannot be modified or abrogated since the death of that fellow Mohammed (Of Mecca & Medina), and which are fully and perpetually binding on them as divine commands.
2. Those commands include a declaration of “perpetual” war (ie Jihad) against all
   non-Muslims until they either become such or abjectly assume the slave-like state some call dhimmitude.
3. Those teachings also require all Muslims to wage that military jihad or “support it with all their wealth”.
4. That command is as binding today as it was 1400-years ago and is also an ongoing “Declaration Of War” against 99% of the citizens of the USA and against the USA itself.
5. Therefore, any act by any Muslim in support of those teachings against any citizen of (Or legal alien in) the USA is an act-of-war AND treason which meets the definition of Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution.
6. Supporting those (eg Major Nidal Hasan) who commit such acts-of-war is also treason.

Effective Control Of Illegal Immigration

Many have claimed that the Senate's immigration bill(S.744) is "good for business, right for the U.S.". Those supporters  have neglected the facts about that Bill.

1.  It both fails to provide effective  control of who enters the USA and allows bureaucrats to nullify its few good measures designed for the protection of the citizens and lawfully here immigrants.

2. That those who now and will illegally enter the USA include those invaders who are too often: Bearers of illegal drugs; Carriers of horrid diseases (eg Drug resistant TB, Polio); Often armed with the most modern and fully-automatic, true, assault rifles; Members of Mexican criminal kidnapping and “hit” squads; And, most harmful to our unemployed citizens (Especially Black youths) those uneducated and under-qualified persons who steal (Very often entry level) jobs from those good people.

I am curious as to why you continue to "throw under the bus"  the USA's unemployed and marginally employed. As you are not elected officials, you do not even have the "need" to pimp for Latino votes as basic to your one-side presentation of pro-immigration views.

 

-As I am loath to present a problem (As to border control) I offer the following proposals.

If, and only if, The Congress wishes to protect us from such invaders, it must:

1. Declare that those entering the USA at other than designated crossing points are invaders;
2. Declare that the USA, like all other nations, has the right and, to its citizens, duty to effectively protect from such invaders;
3. Declare that illegal immigrants have no rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as they have avoided the “jurisdiction” of the USA, as required by that Amendment, through their illegal entry or staying in the USA in violation of visas;
4. Declare that the children of such illegal immigrants are not US citizens for the same reason;
5. Enact such laws as will truly-and-effectively secure our Southern border and protect our citizens by the methods described below.

Effective Use Of Military To Secure USA Borders

1. Restrict the Border Patrol to urban areas and a thousand yards on either side of authorized, rural crossing points;
2. Allow anyone to cross into Mexico, without question, at any authorized crossing point or station;
3. Use four rows of “Razor Ribbon” (“Barbed Tape”) coils In addition to the fences yet to be build and those sort-of in place along the entire border except for roads leading to authorized crossing points;
4. Make the balance of our border, for the first 1000-yards into the USA, a military zone with posted notices in English, Spanish, Parsi, Arabic and local Native American languages that persons entering illegally there will be treated as invaders and will be shot, without warning if they are armed or resist arrest, and otherwise taken into custody for forced deportation or TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION. 

5, Insure enough military personnel (Or alternatives described below) to insure "24/7" visual (ie "Mark-1, Mod-1 Eyeball") ovesight of every foot of our border AND to provide the below described and physical reaction to those invaders.

The troops could be regulars (Some brought back from Europe whose countries appear unwilling to defend themselves), reservists, National Guard and members of the General Militia (Also ad hoc posses raised by Sheriffs, mayors, JPs and other local government officials)

More On Effective Control Of US Border

It is NOT sufficient to merely order units of the National Guard to the border. They must be given "general orders" as will allow them to protect the USA. I suggest the following.
A GENERAL ORDER

1.                  All persons entering the USA at other than approved places, manned by the Border Patrol, are invaders.
2. All such persons are to immediately be forced back across the border by use of such force as is required to do so.
3. Any such persons who are armed are to be immediately fired upon and that without warning.
4. If the Border Patrol or the Armed Forces of the USA (Or, civilians under their protection) are fired upon from across our border, the Border Patrol and the Armed Forces will react to such attacks by small arms fire, field guns or aviation delivered ordinance.
5. The National Guard, Army and, if necessary, the General Militia shall support the emplacement of not less than six coils of "razor ribbon" (aka "Barbed Tape") along every foot of a ocean-to-ocean fence.

6. Provide for high-speed and armed patrol boats and aircraft to prevent illegal immigration by sea and air under the same “General Order” as provided above.

State Protections Vs. Federal Tyranny

Every day brings more news of gross corruption in the Federal government and attacks on those rights which should be guarded by the Bill Of Rights (Especially the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments, for which please read). It is most certain that the Federal government is not exercise its primary duty to protect the People. Given the very apparent failure of the "Washington Government" do so, I strongly suggest that the power to do so is then allocated to the States or the People.

A Bill (#:LRB-2063/1) has been introduced into Wisconsin's Legislature to empower Wisconsin to fill the gap in protecting the People from abuses of their individual rights (Declared so by SCOTUS which ruling was extended to the States)---Such as the
"Toomey-Manchin Proposal". Measures parallel to LRB-2063 are pending or in-effect in other States.

Some doctors have come out against this Bill. They appear to be ignorant of:  The apparent inverse relationship between the ownership of and ready access to guns and crimes;  And, the recent study which supports that position . They are very different from those patriotic physicians who signed the Declaration Of Independence and pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to winning the independence of our nation! If, and only if, those physicians were truly interested in protecting innocent children (Often the physical/emotional victims of home invasions), they would strongly oppose any restrictions on the possession of and ready access to modern firearms.

Everyone should consider the views of our "Founding Fathers" ( As to guns as noted in other blog entries)--And, such tyranny as the Federal government is now inflicting on the People.

Psychiatrists have been central to the violation of the Second Amendment rights of military troops and veterans and residents of New York State .  Therefore, I suggest that the legislature void the exception given to Psychiatrists in the original Bill!

The restrictions on physicians should be extended to psychologists, social workers and other licensed medical care workers or counselors.

Rather than make special provisions for peace officers I strongly suggest that violation of the proposed Law be included in our "Misconduct In Public Office" which provides for imposing those conditions on all public officials and employees.