Posted on 10/23/2006 4:06:16 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
The response was predictable. After sending our alert last Thursday regarding the passing of the Military Commissions Act, we received a flood of email. Many were supportive, but others took exception:
"Don't you care that terrorists want to kill us?"
"Olbermann's obviously a left-wing nut who wants conservatives out of power."
"The act isn't that bad..."
It is bemusing to watch certain conservatives -- conservatives who once screamed that Bill Clinton was going to suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, and put Americans in concentration camps -- blithely justify the actions of a president who appears to be doing just that. A president who once reportedly stated that the Constitution is "just a [expletive] piece of paper."
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." (1)
Remember that phrase? When Clinton advisor Paul Bengala spoke those prophetic words, conservatives were justifiably outraged. How DARE the president unilaterally overturn the Constitution of the United States! He has no right! What hubris! Yet Bush's repeated infringements are quietly excused as "necessary," and those who oppose him are demonized as "liberal nuts" or "terrorist-lovers." Just as those who opposed Clinton's treachery were demonized as part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
"Bush won't misuse it. It'll only be used on terrorists," states one writer.
Okay, let's pretend that's true (historical evidence to the contrary). In the early 1930's, in response to a recent crime wave, the right-of-center Weimar Republic passed several "vital, necessary" laws registering firearms and prohibiting Gypsies from owning them. Five years later, a left-of-center leader was in power and used those same laws, amending them as needed, to consolidate his power. The result was World War II and the murder of millions of what the US might today refer to as "unlawful enemy combatants."
Writes Joe Wolverton II:
"Those who fail to see the dire gravity of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge in the naive partisan belief that President Bush and the Republican Congress would never abuse this tremendous power, should contemplate well the fact that both the White House and Congress may very possibly change to Democrat control in the near future. Then will the supporters of the Bush administration's grasp for power have a leg to stand on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial exercise of the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?" (2)
Like most of this administration's recent legislation and "signing statements," the MCA is a knee-jerk reaction, a product of short-term thinking that will inevitably be used for evil, just as the "vital, necessary" laws of the Weimar Republic were.
"Olbermann's a liberal shill," writes another apologist.
Again, we'll assume that's an accurate statement. But what difference does it make? Many notable conservatives (who truly understand what "conservative" means) have stated the same.
*In addressing the issue before a Senate committee, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate General (JAG) for the Marine Corps, said: "I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual can be tried without, and convicted without seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think the United States needs to become first in that scenario." (3)
* Referring to the new law's provision that a detainee is not allowed to see the evidence presented against him, Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer, stated: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government's evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused was not able to see any of it." (4)
* The Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General Jack Rives declared that the commissions established by the act do "not comport with my ideas of due process." (5) (One wonders why -- if this is the _Military_ Commissions Act -- the military is plainly none too happy with it?)
* Jim Bovard, author of the anti-Clinton book _Feeling Your Pain_ , wrote a scathing commentary on the MCA, as well as the mainstream yawn it engendered (6).
* So did the ultra-conservative magazine _The New American_, which states, "The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent the Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all Americans, not just terrorists." (7).
* Arlen Specter (R) stated of the MCA, "I'm not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional . . . that suspends a right that goes back to 1215..." (8)
* Even the platform of the Constitution Party -- hardly a hotbed of liberal ideology -- states "We deplore and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism" or "protecting national security." (9)
People often make the mistake of assuming that JPFO is a conservative organization because of our support of the Second Amendment. Not so; we're very much beyond that. JPFO is _absolutely_ committed to the Bill of Rights. We have no sacred cows, no party line to follow. Our only criteria is "Does this infringe on the Bill of Rights?" If it does, we react negatively, regardless of who is doing it. Keith Olbermann is not our source -- the law is our source. And this law clearly, unequivocably violates the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"You want to protect terrorists!"
Wrong. We want to protect people accused of terrorism (that whole unfashionable "innocent until proven guilty" thing). People have been unjustly accused by our government before, after all (check out the John Glover case on our website (10)). If the accused are indeed guilty, then punish them appropriately. But everyone deserves the basic right to defend himself in court...not to be locked away in a gulag under some specious accusation.
"The removal of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens."
True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're picked up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because without the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to court to make your case.
Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful enemy combatant". Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "unlawful enemy combatant" as:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense. (11)
Note that this definition (much broader than previously-used definitions) contains NO exception for American citizens. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the UEC label as meaning you are no longer under the protection of the Bill of Rights (12). All the government would have to do at your habeas corpus hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged in some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization "suspected of terrorist ties"...).
Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points out:
"How does an American who is labeled an enemy combatant ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn’t. Under the Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal is limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their detention is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the “unlawful enemy combatant” designation for people accused of terrorism, Americans will be returned to indefinite military custody as “unlawful enemy combatants” if the government has provided some evidence of terrorism at the habeas corpus hearing." (13)
"At least Bush lets us keep our guns."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that people have the ability to overthrow a government that has become tyrannical. The fact remains that all firearms permitted in the US must meet the "sporting purpose" definition. Not all are well-suited for fighting a standing army. Further, guns do little good when you cheerily applaud the tyrant or make excuses for him. Guns, after all, were prevalent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
The painful reality is that both parties have been betraying us for years. They do not respect the Constitution, nor do they respect our basic rights. Conservatives who excuse Bush's actions have been duped into remaining loyal to the ideal of conservatism even as it is twisted into a nearly-unrecognizable mockery of itself by the Bush administration.
A true conservative would say, "WRONG IS WRONG, no matter who is doing it. And destroying our freedoms -- for any reason -- is WRONG. I don't care who's doing it, this is immoral and illegal. I'm not going to follow the party line if it goes against everything I believe."
Perhaps the saddest, most telling comment comes from a writer who states:
"Arab and Iranian Muslims must be exterminated. Any law that remotely points in that direction is good. That you and the U.S. Government coddle Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."
Does anyone fail to see the parallel between 1930's Germany and our present society within this statement? To write such a hate-filled declaration to a Jewish civil rights organization -- one fully aware of the dangers of broadly damning an entire race or religion and advocating their "extermination" -- is breathtaking in its audacity. That the writer is willing -- nay, eager -- to give up his own freedoms and liberty to further such a goal is perhaps saddest of all.
In closing, we offer this challenge: send us a link to a video or thoughtful article that supports the Military Commissions Act as legitimate and Constitutional. We'll put it up, and let our readers decide.
- The Liberty Crew
(1) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings012500.asp
(2) http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(3) ibid
(4) ibid
(5) ibid
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yltvsz
(7) http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(8) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/07/AR2006100700917.html
(9) http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Terrorism%20and%20Personal%20Liberty
(10) http://www.jpfo.org/hw-glover.pdf
(11) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
(12) http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger105.html
(13) ibid
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746
jpfo@jpfo.org
Read the debate and learn something. There are some real concerns about this legislation raised in it.
It's a shame people just ignore them, like the courts ignore the ratification debates. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I wouldn't exactly hold that as a badge on honor on this forum.
So, are you stating that US military personnel firing upon American citizens is just dandy with you? Is that correct?
If the law is not explicit then the law is deeply flawed. This was too easy to fix for the omission to be unintentional. Thus, your argument citing the blandishments on the floor is very weak.
There is more than one way to interpret legislative intent. The problem with citing floor debate is that it is impossible to plumb the understanding of the majority that voted for the legislation, which bears equal weight to the intent of an author.
Nix it or fix it.
The law has been written to prevent prosecution of an American citizen on the basis you claim.
I would encourage you to not become a traitor because, in the past, the laws have been interpreted to rescind citizenship from traitors ~ and that could be done in the future ~ in which case your citizenship will not protect you.
I'm not even getting to "legislative intent" there's no need to as the law says it does not apply to citizens. That that prohibition is not repeated in every section of it is not significant.
I'm just talking about understanding a law. The debates by our representatives explains much of any law in language the average person can understand and make up his mind about it. That's why we have them.
Instead everyone goes to their favorite pressure group on the web and believes whatever they're told by them.
This is easy. Franklin was right about many things, but he was wrong about this. We all make temporary tradeoffs between liberty and freedom. We do this all the time on an individual basis, and we allow our government to do so as well, even in this free society.
There are many many instances throughout our history where during war time we have placed restrictions on due process in very limited circumstances. I'm sure we've erred from time to time, but there has been no slippery slope.
Slogans, like Franklin's, are cheap substitutes for rational thinking. I don't blame him. I blame those who would take his clever but narrowly framed assertion and apply it like so much whitewash. He might just as easily have said the converse--those who would give up their safety for some temporary liberty deserve neither. In today's world, with the threat posed by radical Islam, our liberty will certainly be temporary if we do not use every reasonable tool to defend ourselves.
Franklin was not speaking of a simple tradeoff between order and liberty ~ and simply cannot be expected to have engaged in such a piece of nonsense.
Show me where the government is prohibited from deeming a citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant." If it doesn't specifically say that it can't, then it should be nixed or fixed.
Show me where the law holds a distinction between these powers on persons seized on US soil v. those taken prisoner abroad, as a person lacking proof of citizenship could be held without habeas corpus by the same means (I can't wait until I have to have my chip else my citizenship becomes ambiguous).
Changing these provisions would have been VERY easy. That the legislation wasn't changed when the matter was brought up during floor debate makes reason for suspicion even more pertinent.
Would that it were so easy. We don't exactly make it difficult for those who want to do us in to become and/or breed citizens, these days, do we?
Maybe I should have suggested a "Stupidity of the Year Award for you?" Maybe you could estimate for us the percentage of Muslims HERE in the US, that you think could reasonable be part of a fifth column; and also the percentage of those with black hair that might be part of a fifth column. (Do guys with black hair have a book about killing infidels?)
I am hardly an FDR lover, but I think he did the right thing when he rounded up US citizens of Japanese origin here during WWII. We won that war, and your liberal buddies are upset. Let's not lose this one.
ML/NJ
The quote, as printed in 1759, is "Thoſe who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchaſe a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deſerve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY (smallcaps in original). Whether or not Franklin is responsible for the quote (a Google search suggests that it appears in a book he published but did not write, though it cites a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor) I do not believe the statement therein to be inaccurate.
There is a big difference between temporarily yielding non-essential liberties to ensure substantial continued safety, and surrendering altogether essential liberties for only a slight temporary benefit. That the former may be wise does not imply that the latter is not foolish.
Actually, you've got that totally wrong. We make it very easy for people to come here illegally and breed, but by comparison very difficult for decent people to gain citizenship via naturalization. Still, I would bet I've done far more than you researching the topic of anchor babies as Constitutionally illegitimate.
Maybe I should have suggested a "Stupidity of the Year Award for you?" Maybe you could estimate for us the percentage of Muslims HERE in the US, that you think could reasonable be part of a fifth column; and also the percentage of those with black hair that might be part of a fifth column. (Do guys with black hair have a book about killing infidels?)
Given the physical similarity of Mexicans and Muslims, you would prefer to dump Constitutional protections and build a massive police state bureaucracy while eliciting general insurrection? No thanks. I'll wear such an award from you with pride.
I am hardly an FDR lover, but I think he did the right thing when he rounded up US citizens of Japanese origin here during WWII. We won that war, and your liberal buddies are upset. Let's not lose this one.
I don't. The record shows that it turned out to be a waste of resources. I would, however, be fine with aggressive enforcement of sedition charges against anyone who prefers Sharia law versus Constitutional law along with empowerment of the militia to make arrests on such grounds.
Anyone who has difficulty telling a Mexican from a Muslim really should absent himself from these sort of discussions. When you see a group of guys standing in a group in the AM waiting to be pick up they're Mexicans. When you see women coming and going to nearly the same place they're Mexicans. When you hear them speaking Spanish, they're Mexicans. They only problem anyone can have with someone originally from Mexico is that he has violated our immigration laws to jump someone else's place on line to come to our country. And you know somthing, if that person he/she cut in front of was an Islamic Swine, he/she did us a big favor.
ML/NJ
You do know that there are Arabs who hang out in South America long enough to adopt the appearance, language, and mannerisms of Mexicans and then pay coyotes to come across the border?
What a putz. I'm done with you.
It isn't lying crap. If JPFO can interpret the law to include U.S. citizens, then so can some opportunistic politician or bureaucrat.
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.