The WOT under Clinton.
Posted on 10/12/2006 7:38:28 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
In one month, we will know if Americans understand the danger of the Bush administration's fanatical preoccupation with terrorism combined with one-party control of the executive and legislative branches. If voters let pass the opportunity in the November election to take Congress out of Republican hands, America will experience a more rapid descent into a police state.
The Bush administration's response to 9-11, an event about which we have incomplete and unreliable information, has been to trample important civil liberties such as habeas corpus, the attorney-client privilege, privacy, due process and prohibition against self-incrimination.
Today, "detainees" incarcerated by U.S. government officials are held indefinitely without charges or warrants – essentially imprisoned without trial, denied access to lawyers and family, and tortured in an effort to attain self-incrimination, while U.S. citizens are spied upon without court warrants.
These are the distinctive features of a police state. They have brought President Bush and his government into conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and U.S. statutory law. To sanctify these violations of Constitution, treaty and law, last week the Republican Congress passed a warrantless surveillance bill and a detainee bill that destroys privacy and removes court protections and Geneva Conventions protections from detainees.
Many Americans are unconcerned about these developments, because they believe only real terrorists are affected. In fact, the majority of "terrorist detainees" are innocent people sold to Americans as "terrorists" for bounties. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf says, "We have earned bounties totaling millions of dollars." Amnesty International's Claudio Cordone says of that organization's report released Sept. 29, "Bounty hunters, including police officers and local people, have captured individuals of different nationalities, often apparently at random, and sold them into U.S. custody."
Moreover, the definition of "terrorist suspect" is subject only to the discretion of the arresting officials. No evidence has to be presented or even possessed to justify the detention of the person as a terrorist. As no evidence is required, anyone can be branded a terrorist suspect.
Consider, also, that laws tend to be expansively interpreted. For example, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was intended to apply to organized crime. Today, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context, including divorce cases. It is applied to individuals, legitimate businesses and political protest groups.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and a variety of neoconservative and Republican writers are attempting to broaden the definition of terrorist to include truthful critics of Bush's Iraq war. On Sept. 29, for example, The Associated Press reported that Bush said that critics who claim the Iraq war has made America less safe embrace "the enemy's propaganda."
In making this charge, Bush is damning the National Intelligence Estimate prepared by U.S. intelligence agencies, which concluded that the war in Iraq was making Americans less safe by breeding more terrorism.
If Bush can accuse the CIA of "embracing terrorist propaganda," any columnist or reporter who reports truthfully can be put in the "against us" camp and interred for giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."
By passing the detainee and surveillance bills, Congress has given the executive branch the power to silence dissent. Naive Americans believe that there is a difference between the government having arbitrary and unaccountable powers to arrest enemies and using these powers against its own citizens. But governments always use the powers they gain. Otherwise, there is no point to the U.S. Constitution, which was written to restrain the growth of government power. If government can be trusted with arbitrary and unaccountable power, the U.S. Constitution has no purpose.
The Democrats, of course, have done nothing to protect us from Bush's illegal war or from his assaults on the Constitution and civil liberty. Democrats have been intimidated by the threat of being politically placed in the "against us" camp, and Democrats are as much in the pockets of AIPAC, the oil industry and the military-industrial complex as Republicans.
Nevertheless, one-party rule magnifies error by marginalizing dissent and debate. The Republican Congress acquiesces to the Republican executive in order to maintain a common front that the opposition cannot penetrate. Detrimental policies and laws harmful to liberty are passed for the sake of party power, not because they are good for Americans or true to the Constitution.
The Democrats don't deserve to be in office any more than do the Republicans, but by putting Democrats in office, voters can strengthen Americans' ability to dissent from Bush's police state measures and Bush's commitment to interminable wars in the Middle East. One-party rule suppresses dissent within the government and, thus, makes dissent all the more difficult outside government.
Freedom and democracy in America are already impaired by a heavily concentrated media ownership that no longer serves the public interest. A one-party government combined with a corporate controlled press is no recipe for maintaining freedom and democracy in America.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
This is the same guy that worked for the Reagan admin???
Mr. Roberts is a few short steps away from writing of "concentration camps," in the late 90's/early 00's FR sense.
I wonder if the writer could name another war in American history in which enemy combatants were given civil trials in American courts?
The WOT under Clinton.
Police state? Other than increased airport security, which is a good thing, I do not know, or know of, anyone who has had any civil liberties trampled upon by the feds. The only trampling going on is by the leftist gun control crowd, the teacher's unions support of homosexual and socialist agendas and the RAT leadership's hatred for all things Bush.
Oh, and I forgot the local advocates of eminent domain for political and economic purposes.
Since Alberto Gonzalez only goes after porn-surfers, online gamblers and TV bounty hunters, we should all move to Mexico and return as illegal aliens--the one type of perp Herr Gonzalez will NEVER touch.
He fails to mention that, for decades, it has been such a powerful combination of the Far Left Democratic leadership, the Left's domination of the major TV network leadership, its liberal newspaper editors, Hollywood's spewing of liberal ideas, the National Education Association's takeover of schools, the ACLU and its spokespersons, the labor unions, et al, and now the Soros billions that threaten the fundamental principles of democratic republican government envisioned by America's founders.
Ideas have consequences: the Founders' ideas resulted in causing America to be a beacon for liberty in the world.
The grid through which Mr. Roberts sees America distorts his vision.
You're mistaken...this is Roberts ON his meds. Without them is too frightening to imagine.
Typical liberal elitist worrying about all the 'stupid' voters.
What happened to this guy. One look at his Wiki bio leaves a person in total confusion. Was he gang-raped by a group of neo-Zionists? Brainwashed by a combination of the PLO and Aryan Nation? What the hell happened to a guy who Reagan loved, practically wrote the 1981 Tax cut act himself, worked at CATO, and wrote for the WSJ? It just makes no sense. Ward Churchill is more reasoned than this nutbag.
Mad cow?
Is that the Karl Rove remote control???
Montag813,
I believe it is pure rage, we see it alot from the paleocons and isolationists on the right who absolutely despise Bush. We are all stupid for not understanding the wisdom of the PaleoCons and putting Bush in the White House. Their flailing at windmills is just an example of how rage and resentment manifests itsfests itself in hate-filled diatribes, outlandish assertions, and the willingness to believe the most outrageous things about the object of your torment, in this case, President Bush.
But Roberts, particularly, has lost his friggin mind. As evidenced by his work over the last year, he has descended into conspiracy-madness. His hatred is so overwhelming, and his own beliefs are so sacrosanct, that he simply cannot deal with the absence of influence on events he feels so catastrophic. He has really hurt himself and lost the respect that comes with being an honest, thoughtful journalists. How does he ever get his credibility back?
I have complained to NewsMax twice about giving this loon forum to spout his evil accusations. I am surprised that they contnue to publish his "work". I'm truly embarrassed for them.
PF
When NewsMax finally gets rid of him, I'm sure WorldNutDaily will cheerfully hire him on.
Like this one:
Brer' Paul here is way beyond that ~ he's more into:
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.