Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
I responded to your remark about 'a more perfect union'. I didn't say anything more than that. Sheesh.
Do you know what a Constitutional Republic means?
It doesn't mean that government can do anything it wants. It does mean that government must follow the rules laid down for it. It has limited, defined powers to do some things in certain areas. Period.
Are you that afraid? Are you that convinced that the govenment can make you safe? What else will you give up in order to feel safe?
Safety is a feeling, not a fact. I don't give up my liberty lightly, not even temporarily.
I'm not a lady. Never have been, never will be. I'm a woman.
The writer nails this one. I am amazed the "civil liberatarians" have no care whatsoever for how their efforts will hurt the American people as a whole.
Dan Evens objects:
I reject the notion we must trade freedom for security. The 9/11 attack happened because our 2nd amendment rights were taken away. If the passengers on those planes had had the right to carry firearms, the terrorists would never have attempted to hijack them.
______________________________________
Well said Dan..
Note that Sam has no answer to the the fact that libertarians fight for our right to bear arms, -- and ALL of our other rights.
We cannot "lose this war", as long as we keep our liberty to fight.
The writer only 'nails' himself as a defeatist if he believes, like you Sam, that somehow 'Civil Libertarians' have a selective opinion of what "civil liberties" are.
Libertarians support the Constitution, and all its civil liberties.
Can you prove otherwise, Sam?
There was no point in responding, because you offer opinion, and nothing else.
Dan offered a fact, -- that our 2nd amendment rights were taken away, thus enabling the 9/11 attack. -- This refutes your opinion that it is libertarian "efforts" that "hurt the American people as a whole".
I agree that the second amendment should be protected, but the modern civil liberties movement is about restricting the rights of people, not increasing their rights.
You claim that libertarians are part of that restrictive movement. This is not true. It's just libertarian bashing
We just got through with Christmas and another wave of the civil rights infringements on Christians. The best example is how the civil rights of Mohammed Atta trumped the right to life, liberty and happiness that those killed in the towers inherently had.
And you somehow tar libertarians as wanting to infringe? Get a grip Sam.
You have your opinion, and your welcome to it, but that is all it is, an opinion.
You are misstating libertarian opinion, and engaging in disruptive hyperbole. -- Feel free to do so, but don't be surprised to have your own opinions refuted..
An excellent question. So many of the kneejerk civil-rights absolutists have made the assumption that warrantless wire taps are unusual or totally illegal.
Powerline blog has an excellent analysis on the legality of the President's actions. Long - but definitive and worth the time. He's on strong legal ground - both in law, precedent and history!
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
Title: On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program
and now you're saying:Our freedoms are worth fighting for, that's why we shouldn't just give them away.
Which is it? You are on both sides of the argument. You can't be debated with because you are arguing both sides.
The point is I'm proud of my country, and I'm proud to be free,
In a theoretical war, and that's what we re talking about here, what good are freedoms when your enemy doesn't believe in freedoms? In that kind of war it's a fight of civilizations, theirs or ours. I choose ours. In our world rights can be regained and reinstated. In their world, it's obedience or death.
Have you even thought about what could happen if Hildabeast has these powers if the lefties get back in power?? Then what if they decide they need to take our guns to keep us safe from terror too?...
Americans will never lose the 2nd amendment. There would be a civil war first I believe. Especially if it's the hildabeast trying to take them. As far as she becoming president...she isn't going to become president.
Yes, they are tasked with protecting us, BUT within the confines of their constitutional authority. They do not have authority to kick in my door without a warrant, do they? They do not have authority to place a policeman or soldier in my house, do they?
The Constitution was to bind down the federal government. Too many, even here on FR, are willing to give them unfettered powers in exchange for 'feeling safe'. I am not one of them. I don't expect to live forever, but I do intend to remain free while I am still alive.
If the terrorist instituted an all out attack on us, there would be massive destruction and a terrible loss of life, but they can't defeat us. If we won't lose our liberty to them in a war, why would we cede it to our own government -- who has been trying to limit our liberty for decades?
Considering the nature of our enemy, wire tapping certainly qualifies for the common defense.
Dan Evans replies:
Do you think that the Bill of Rights should be subservient to the right of the Federal government to provide for the common defense? I don't, for two reasons.
1) Our rights were there before the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not say that it can be suspended.
2) For practical reasons, most our security is (or was) provided by the Bill of Rights. The second amendment even mentions it.
Sam's rebuttal:
That doesn't work because we are technically a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This makes the Constitution is our guiding document, and the common defense a mandate.
Sam, you are confusing our governments mandated responsibility to provide a common defense, - and its inability to infringe on our liberties in order to do so.
As Dan noted & you ignored, -- "The Bill of Rights does not say that it can be suspended."
Certainly, our Commander in Chief has wartime powers. - But he is always restrained by his primary oath to support our Constitution. [or he should be]
I did read and reread #159.
The only comment that could be stretched into the range of 'hostility' is 'childish scare tactics'.
For a non-lady woman, you sure have thin skin.
BTW, I never made an assumption about your sex, only that of conservativehoney.
I suppose the bone of contention here is that our view of unfettered powers is clearly very different. I don't see them as being anywhere near having that. You obviously do. So, discussing it won't get us anywhere.
BTW I hope they're not breaking down your door or quartering soldiers in your house. But, if they do, I'll come and tell them to stop! :)
susie
If Al Qaeda could pull off ten attacks every year the size of the WTC attack they would kill fewer Americans than we lose in traffic accidents. As long we don't knuckle under, we are in no danger of being conquered.
But terrorists are called that because the gain power by creating terror. If we respond to their attacks by giving them respect, authority and money we can expect to see more attacks. And if we respond to their attacks by taking liberty from Americans, then we weaken our own ability to defend ourselves.
Delegated powers must be through the amendment process, not a declaration of a judge, not by a simple vote by Congress, and certainly not via an executive order.
So tell me again who authorized these 'special powers'?
Congress authorized these powers. Unless the court deems them unconstitutional, it holds up.
You need to go back and research Marbury vs. Madison to figure out where things went wrong as far as who decides what is constitutional or not.
Sam, you need to re-read M v M yourself. Marshall concludes with the observation that 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution are null & void from the moment they are written.
We the people don't need no steeinking courts to decide our liberties.
I keep hearing this, but I don't believe it. They hate us because we are not them.
susie
Is there nothing that you would object to?
Congress has no authority to delegate or grant powers to another branch of government. That requires an amendment agreed to by Congress and the requisite number of States.
The Supreme Court has reversed itself numerous times. There is no such thing as 'settled law'. But the SC was never intended, not is it the only arbiter of what is constitutional.
You don't like my opinion? Try these on. . .
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it…"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.
Here is a quote that I couldn't find earlier.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
- Right-wing extremist John Adams
You are again posting properly and if I may say so, defending yourself quite well.
Your words have been clear, yet some are attacking you as being self contradictory. Just keep slugging away, kid/lady/woman. LOL
Well, our President claims that's what it's about in umpteen different speeches, so I believe him. The only part I don't understand is why he wants us to give up our freedom to appease the terrorists. You'd think if he really wanted to get their goat, he'd make us even more free....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.