There Will Be No Civil Liberties If We Lose This War

The New Media Journal.us ^ | December 30, 2005 | Frank Salvato

[Freebird Forever]

And who decided who is a terrorist?

It's simple.

Anyone who doesn't blindly grovel at the feet of our Dear NeoCons is a terrorist.

[Krusty]

"The section that text appears under is titled "Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces." It says nothing about wiretaps or the NSA."

The Director of the NSA is Lt. General Keith B. Alexander (of the Armed Forces).

[Non-Sequitur]

In the universe of possibilities, the question is slightly unsettled; but SCOTUS in Milligan described the Constitutional parameters. The power falls to Congress, unless temporary suspension is required due to impossibility of Congress to weigh in.

It placed restrictions on where it can be suspended, not who can suspend it. It addressed Congress in the case because habeas corpus had been suspended under powers granted by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has never ruled on just who may suspend it because the matter has never been taken before the entire court. It should have been, in 1861, but it wasn't. The matter remains unresolved.

[SunSetSam]

The wire taps are logical, right, an legal. I find it far more disturbing that nobody is concerned with the constant "drip drip" of leaks that is now coming out of the CIA (probably facilitated by one or two senators, such as Rockefeller) in an attempt to embarrass the President and hurt our efforts against terrorists.

[Cboldt]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on just who may suspend it because the matter has never been taken before the entire court. It should have been, in 1861, but it wasn't.

I agree that there was no controversy as to which branch of government had the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The President did not challenge the court on that point. But the Court clearly expressed the notion that the power lies with Congress first, and the presidnet acting alone only if and only for as long as Congress is unable to act.

The matter remains unresolved.

Your point seems to be that the president generally has the unilateral power to suspend habeas corpus (because the power is not granted to Congress, not denied to the executive), and until the Court says otherwise (and according to you, it didn't in the Milligan case), the president holds that power today.

I disagree with that, but have nothing further to offer in support. I think the Milligan case speaks well to the question.

[Badray]

Were your eyes open and brain functioning when you read what I wrote?

Do you believe that I support abortion? Is that what you got out of what I wrote?

Do you believe that we only have those rights that are enumerated?

Are you familiar with the fight over the BoR?

[Badray]

Thank you for your much clearer explanation re Roe v Wade. You said it much better than I did back at #97.

SSS,

See the post that this is in response to if you are still unclear on my intent in #97.

[Badray]

LOL

susie, susie, susie. I know the story of the boy who cried wolf and I am quite sure that this man knew it very well himself when he wrote these words:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

--James Madison,"A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163

[SunSetSam]

There is only one fight over the Bill of Rights, those who want adhere to it, and those who want to squint at it and see only the things in there that support their own brand of politics (and omit the things that don't support their own personal policy preferences).

[Badray]

Oh, one more thing . . .

I don't compare the USA to other countries less free. That is folly. For 225 + years, this country has been a haven for those longing to be free, not just freer.

The scary thing about this was pointed out by one such person who came here in his quest for liberty. Before excaping his own country to come here, he stated that we were always a beacon for people everywhere. The dream, everyone's dream, was to come to America. If we forsake freedom for some perceived notion of safety, not only do others no have a place to flee to for freedom, but where do we go? What country will be our haven?

If America becomes another Europe, or South America, or Africa, where do we run?

[brytlea]

I suppose we could get into a semantics game about the words free, freer, etc. Clearly you have a different concept of free than I do. You are probably bound to be disappointed, always. That's ok with me.
susie

[Badray]

They were wiretapping you??

Maybe. How would I know?

I should have been more specific, but I was not claiming to have been wiretapped. However, the last time that I was at an airport or a federal building, I was treated like a potential terrorist. Everyone around me was too. Weren't you?

Have you noticed that government security measures are really designed to protect, perpetuate, and expand government? The only reason that they care about the airports is so that more planes can't be flown into more government buildings.

[Badray]

Does your version of history precede 9/11?

I was referring to the fight over whether the BoR would be misconstrued by people such as yourself to mean that we only had the rights that were enumerated.

You need to remember that we pre-exist our government. We were here. We formed the States. The States formed the Federal -- not national -- government. We delegated certain limited and defined powers to the new government. All other rights and powers are retained by the people or to the States.

If you need more history than that, you will need to do your own homework, but please do get an education on what limited constitutional government means. Learn what freedom means. Then live it, love it, and defend it.

[brytlea]

However, the last time that I was at an airport or a federal building, I was treated like a potential terrorist. Everyone around me was too. Weren't you? Have you noticed that government security measures are really designed to protect, perpetuate, and expand government?

Yes, but I was more irritated that the woman who worked at the airport (and wanted me to stop taking pictures of my son going thru the security checkpoint) was hollering at me in SPANISH than I was about being treated as if I might be a terrorist. Frankly, Jewelry stores all treat us as if we might steal some jewelry (why else keep it in glass cases and watch us like hawks when we try it on?) Actually, it's the nature of a free country. If we were not so free most of us would probably just not be allowed to fly (or buy expensive jewelry). The rest of your post re: the government just trying to protect itself is something I don't even have an answer for, except to say, no, I don't agree with that, but maybe you have some experience that tells you otherwise. I am not quite so cynical as you, I guess. I feel extremely free (ok, they do take alot of my money). Maybe it's just a function of what you're doing. I don't know. susie

[don asmussen]

185JHP wrote:

Please be advised that some FReepers are aware that what's really on the mind of some of the craziest and nastiest "anti-terrorism measures" posts is a disgustingly selfish concern: "How might this anti-terrorism measure affect my obtaining the illegal drugs I covet?"

And conversely, -- please be advised that what's really on the mind of some of the craziest and nastiest prohibitionists on FR, -- is a disgustingly selfish concern: how might these anti-terrorism measures be used to further the war on 'illegal items', the war that they love?

[Ciexyz]

Excellent article.

[SunSetSam]

Ah, so you wrap a weak point in insults in an attempt to support a position. This is the tactic of somebody who really has no idea what they are talking about. So here is your education, seeing as you really are in sore need of one. The Preamble to the constitution uses the word "provide" only once, this is in reference to the "Common Defense". The line "Provide for the common defense" represents the mandate by "We the people" (us) who are charged to with the formation of a "more perfect union". In this case the word "union" is used not suggest we form a more perfect Ohio, or Pennsylvania, but a more perfect nation (or the whole that the individual states create). Considering the nature of our enemy, wire tapping certainly qualifies for the common defense.

It was a nice try Badray, but you are very limited in your depth of knowledge on Constitutional issues, and thus not equipped for this level of conversation. Your opinion notwithstanding, is not a very good constitutional argument.

[Ciexyz]

Lose and become Iran.

Step One from the left is to totally demonize our President (like the world demonized the Shah of Iran). Then abandon him, leave him swinging in the wind, until even his own supporters become lukewarm. Then move in to destroy him and "his" system.

[conservativehoney]

Give me a freaking break....You want to debate me on issues than let's have a go at it....But don't just make up crap.. You logic is really lacking...No one will ever, make me where a burqua, or give up my rights.... I am a citizen of the US of A, and ain't no one gonna make me where a burqua. I'm pretty sure my friends Smith & Wesson have my back on the issue..How you equate me not wanting to to give up my rights to me wanting to be oppressed is beyond me. Are you trying to imply that if I don't give up my rights, someone is going to make me wear a burqua? Because if that's what your saying you really have some logic issues... If the terrorist hate us for our freedom, why give up freedom to appease them?? As long as we live in a free country, ain't no one gonna make me where a burqua...However, if this country is made less free there is no telling what we could be made to do...Government ain't your friend, no matter what party is in charge. I'm not comfortable with the idea of dressing head to to in garb and wearing a burqua, and that's why I thank my lucky stars I live in a free nation so I don't have to do what I don't want to. (besides pay taxes) No matter what terror they throw our way, no one in America will have to where a burqua, unless they want to.. So stop with the childish scare tactics cause they don't scare me none...

[don asmussen]

SunSetSam wrote:

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.

______________________________________


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.
27 Dan Evans

______________________________________


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?