Posted on 12/05/2011 4:48:11 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Since 9/11, Senator Lindsey Graham has said repeatedly that we must fight the terrorists “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” But this week, Graham threw that all out the window. Apparently, we are now at war everywhere. Forever.
Commenting on the controversial Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act — which many contend gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge — Graham made clear this week that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
The entire world is now a “battlefield”? “Including the homeland”?
There have been serious constitutional questions raised recently concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely uncharted legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?
This is a new and unprecedented government power that should scare the living hell out of every last American. Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) rightly called it “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” Jim Gilmore, former Virginia governor and chairman of the Congressional Panel on Terrorism, roundly denounced it: “The provisions of this bill undermine the basic safeguards that we enjoy as Americans. It is dangerous, and should not be supported by anyone: Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, citizen or non-citizen.”
Added Gilmore: “This ill-considered bill is one of those dangers to our liberties by an unwise extension of military power in the homeland contrary to all law, precedent and history.”
As Amash and Gilmore note — and Graham ignores — the basic constitutional principle of protecting individual liberties through due process is not some negotiable piece of historical trivia. It is the bedrock of the most rudimentary American and Western law dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. Accepting this legislation blindly — as the majority of both parties seem entirely comfortable with — is to surrender the most basic of American liberties. Said Sen. Rand Paul, who fought hard and mostly alone to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of this terrifying provision: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.”
And the terrorists have won. If a primary purpose of terrorism is to induce fear, and Americans are willing to give up their most precious freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism, how is this anything less than a monumental victory for our enemies?
Most who support this new power for the federal government — and especially Graham — also agree that what we call the “war on terror” is a war that will last forever. In this light, this new legislation poses a particular danger, or as Sen. Paul explains: “During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During the Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended … Fortunately, those actions were reversed after the war.”
Paul then notes:
The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome, given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.
A state of permanent war inevitably means permanent loss of liberties. When “protecting our freedoms” is defined by gradually giving them up one by one, Americans are no longer protected or free. This was understood well by our Founding Fathers and was one of the primary reasons they wrote the Constitution their descendants are now so eager to discard. Benjamin Franklin believed that when you give up liberty for security, you get neither. James Madison wrote:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other...In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
The great fear in allowing government officials to forgo due process is not that it might hurt actual terrorists (for the record, I’m in favor of hurting actual terrorists, badly) but that it might hurt you, me or any other innocent American in the future. To support giving government this sort of power, you must assume two things: 1) Government never makes mistakes; and 2) Government never abuses its power. I know few who believe either.
Let us gauge our decline in our rhetoric. James Madison said in 1795: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Lindsey Graham said this week, boastfully: “When they say, ‘I want to talk to a lawyer,’ we tell them, ‘Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!’”
This isn’t protecting America. It’s destroying it.
(Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle) I should have read further. Y’all were way ahead of me.
Saw a poster that read:
“IF TERRORISTS HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM, THEN ISN’T THE PATRIOT ACT APPEASEMENT?”
It would be interesting to see, if Al Queda actually took military control of a US town and our own military was not allowed to take it back because they’re not allowed to fight on US soil.
As to internment... What was America supposed to do, when some Japanese Americans were actively spying for the Emperor? When its your decision to make, and tens of thousands of American lives hang in the balance, it gets a little tougher.
No. And no to more special WoT provisions, no more Graham, and no more McCain.
They all know the pot is going to boil over one day and they want to be prepared to start rounding up all the freedom fighters I mean domestic terrorists.
Islamic Doctrine states that the world is divided into two parts:
Dar al-Islam (House of Islam)
Dar al-Harb (House of War)
With this bill, United States law is now in obedience with Islamic precepts, by declaring itself in two parts:
Dar al-Fed (House of Direct Federal Authority)
Dar al-Harb (House of War)
In other words, the Natural Person under States Rights, as structured by the Bill of Rights, has now been declared by the Federal Government as Dar al-Harb.
The only proper reply to this atrocity is an immediate lawsuit by all 50 States.
This bill could be nefarious, unfortunately the willfull lying about what the bill exactly states taints the assertion it is as bad as stated. If you don’t know that I’m talking about then you need to read the bill like I did.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about then you need to read the bill like I did
That was Orwell's point.
Ok. Your post that I was responding to sounded like you were in favor of it.
*if* the CONUS is now officially, by fed proclamation, a warzone, what does that do for the 'militia' ??? we have an estimated 10-30 million foreign invaders inside the border, and a declared war [by the jihadi gubmints] and we reside in an official hot zone...
what precedent/prerequisite does this suggest for the *next* move by the fed ???
it i now live in a hotspot, it would seem that the fed, or my state guard would be calling me to muster and receive my M4 and kevlar, or they are arranging the pieces to declare me and outlaw/terrorist if i insist on my God given FReedom...
Hunter simply believes in giving into every terrorist demand. That and endoring leftist democrats while working for the American Dhimmi.
Well, do you see a rebuilt WTC in New York?
And yes, builders no longer are trying to build high-rises as high now, due to people’s fears of being unable to evacuate if the need arose.
Two minutes of hate?
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
You know, I can't see anything there (or here) that prevents the armed forces from fighting on US soil.
It’s from George Orwell’s 1984. If you haven’t read it, you should.
I’ve read it; years ago... I just don’t remember that part.
At work they would gather and spend two minutes yelling and screaming at an image of Emmanuel Goldstein.
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.