Posted on 09/17/2001 11:57:43 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:47:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The government arsenal to counterattack U.S.-based terrorists behind last week's "act of war" already includes wartime powers and other Draconian tactics that unsettle civil libertarians.
In "cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require it," the Constitution permits a president to suspend the right to be freed from arrest by a writ of habeas corpus -- as Lincoln did during the Civil War. That denies a person jailed even by illegal means recourse in the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Bush doesn't seem to me to be a rights grabber. If he is, over 50% of american households are armed. It's still darn tough to do.
cj
I believe the only state in the conflict that didn't suspend habeas corpus was North Carolina(thanks to our great Governor Zebulon Vance).
As for Taney, I read in a footnote of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men that Lincoln may have put out an arrest warrant for him, can anyone confirm that(preferably with a source)?
We've lived in police states before. We've lived in armed streets and neighborhoods before. It's nothing new. If governemnt is so evil, why is our society as free as it is now? Government has pretty much had its will for the past 70 years. It is those *running* the government that ultimately let freedom flourish or squelch it. We are so fortunate this happened on Bush's watch instead of Clinton's watch.
They don't realize that individuals surrender freedoms for the common good - particularly in times of battle. They've become spoiled and weak-minded.
BRAVO !
If I see one more inane post about how we are losing all of our freedoms, I'll scream.
The terrorists -- like so many others -- have underestimated Dubya. They took this usually mild mannered guy to be a pushover. Boy are they getting a rude surprise.
True then, true today.
The Senate just passed everything Reno asked for for 8 years. They just put Barbara Boxer in charge of the terrorist committee that will recommend laws to fight terrorism.
These laws will never be repealed. When Hillary is president, some people here are going to wonder where she got the power to attack us. They will forget that they demanded the government have those powers.
Remember Janet Reno said that Christians and pro-life, pro-gun conservatives are the biggest threat the country has. How many of you trust Boxer, Hillary, Lantos, Meehan, etc. to respect the Bill of Rights?
Any power that you don't want Hillary, or someone like her, to have as president, don't give that power to Bush. Bush will leave office one day and we will have to live under someone like Hillary who hates our freedoms every bit as much as the Muhammadans do. People better wake up or we have already lost what's left of our republic.
I can look for the book if you want. It is around here somewhere. The book was pro-North and pro-Union, so I don't think that arrest warrant was made up by southerners.
Lincoln, and Republicans were pretty p***ed at Taney for the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln was not the moderate that is sometimes portrayed in the high school history books.
There are differences - it is not a right to board a plane - security measures are needed. But anyone who does not think the lefties won't try to use this opportunity to go too far and shouldn't be watched closely during this time is a fool.
If I see one more of your (inane) posts tonight over-enthusiastically defending elitist bankers (another thread) and federal intrusions, I'll scream!
Sensless, baseless screaming about how YOU are going to lose your freedom because of what happened last Tuesday is childish. There hasn't been any hint of such a thing happening.
Go ahead and scream , that's all you and your ilk has been doing here for a week. The hysterical screaming about imagined boggymen , by frightened babies.
Not at all. I have nothing against the wealthy, in fact I admire them (in most cases)... people who know me would testify that I often defend the rich in conversations where they are being villified just because they are wealthy. I despise class warfare.
If the villification is justified however, that's a different story.
Regarding loss of rights... while nothing of extreme concern has yet happened, the situation bears watching for unnecessary legislation. Do you really think there are not those in DC who are already thinking about such opportunities?
You're the one who appears to be screaming in your posts. You're the one making blanket generalizations about people.
You imply that I am selfish to be concerned about losing freedom? Well then call me selfish. I'll call you sheeple.
Luke 22:36 (KJV) --Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Got sword? (M1 Garand ==>CMP)
No mercy, no quarter!
May the jihadists burn in hell for eternity!
Help speed them on their way!
Molon Labe!
Poll: bin Laden's skull can be best used as an ....
As far as losing freedoms and rights , there are those here who claim that it is axiomatic and proforma that that will happen because we are at war. Again, this is also paranoid and only agenda driven. I , nor anyone wlse who look ascance at these replies, claims that we should let down our guard. Yet, it does have to be rebemebered that during waetime, certain freedoms have been curtailed, and with good reason.
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.