A Coup against the American Constitution

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM ^ | November 14, 2001 | Professor Francis A. Boyle

[cc2k]

If Clinton would have done something about the Arabs who were coming over here to kill Americans after the 1993 attack on the WTC, 7000 Americans would still be alive.

If Clinton or Reno would have suggested "sneek and peak" search warrants, or some of the other "tools" that Bush and Ashcroft have now, would you have supported it back in 1993?

[NewAmsterdam]

Good stuff. I am doing a small piece on the nuke-from-the-parody-internet-site-found-by-dashing-reporter-Anthony-Lloyd-and-reported-as-evidence. Always fun to get the knife into the media. My papers love that.

[Aerial]

The military tribunal is an extraordinary measure, for an extraordinary situation. This Washinton Post opinion will explain it more fully for those who are poo pooing about their rights.

Or this:

Are You Concerned About New Legislation That Harms Your Rights?

[jerod]

Well if that does happen, my suggestion is; A new revolution, a new constitution, etc., etc..

Your forefathers did it, and I'm sure you could if you had to. Apparently the police and firemen of New York would be on your side.

Until then, don't be fooled by liberal Bush haters, and conservative freedom fighters (kind of an odd combo don't you think?), into to thinking that you're democracy can't handle the proper use of the constitution to wage, and win a war against terrorism.

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this executive order. As indicated by Article 1, section 9 of your holy grail.

Couple that with the fact that George Bush is of sound mind and judgment, unlike X-42, and you have a tool to vanquish and destroy the enemies that lay before you. For the sake of your democracy and other democracies throughout this world - DO NOT FALTER NOW.

[Rowdee]

Think about it......Constitution....treaties.....conventions.....If we decide to pick and choose what parts of these treaties and conventions we will abide by, then we are telling the world we don't give d damned about these treaties...that with our power, we will dictate to the world.

Funny thing....when we make these statements, they seem to assume that they also don't have to abide by these treaties and conventions...and our personnel, both civilian and military can suffer.

[Rowdee]

Article 6 of our Constitution, (2) says...."This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[mbb bill]

Not new, congress has been attacking the constitution for years...

[betty boop]

Hello tberry! This Francis Boyle person begins with a conclusion, to wit: "...clearly aliens here are entitled to the protections of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as to the Article III (Section 2, Clause 3) basic constitutional rights in criminal cases, including indictment, trial before a Federal District judge or jury, [rights relating to] venue and things of that nature. It would take me an entire law review article to go through all the problems with this executive order."

To which I would reply: Please go read the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The "We the People" who ordained and established the Constitution did so for the benefit of "ourselves and our posterity." It says nothing about aliens in the United States, particularly illegal ones (who are breaking U.S. law just by being here illegally). Not to mention that Boyle's one-worlder, "one-size-fits-all" approach to civil liberities completely ignores the fact that the country is at war, and the very people on whom Boyle wants to confer the Constitutional protections of American citizens are the very people who are here to destroy the Constitution and all other things American, especially including American civilians.

Well, Boyle can moan all he wants to; but it is an Executive Order, executed under fully constitutional Executive war powers. He must be very frustrated; but that's just the way it goes.

Speaking for myself, I don't think it's a good idea to extend the protections of the Constitution to any person who is not an American citizen. That may sound harsh; but the fact remains, a person can become an American citizen, and take the oath of citizenship. I believe it is that oath -- a pledge to unhold the Constitution and to come under its laws as a new member of We the People -- that's the very thing which qualifies a foreign national as entitled to full Constitutional protections. Let's not forget: The Constitution was designed to protect American citizens, not the "citizens of just-anywhere." JMHO, FWIW.

Of course, the "hard Left" would have a serious ideological problem with this theory of mine.... best, bb.

[Rowdee]

..."Now is the time to plug up some of those lib holes, for example, the right to a speedy trial"....

For crying out loud.....are you accusing the Founding Fathers of being liberals? That is certainly what you appear to be doing.

A read of Amendment 6 to the Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jurify of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been commited,........."

While I am quite comfortable with everyone at FR essentially being 'against' libs, we should certainly know somehting about that which we are accusing them!

[Boucheau]

["The military tribunal is an extraordinary measure, for an extraordinary situation"]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." -- James Madison

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Bingo!

Judging by the "it can't happen here" mindset of most conservatives in this forum we're definitely going to repeat it.

I'm shocked at how few of our "defenders of the constitution, freedom, and the American way" will admit that freedom is taking major blows of late.

If the government keeps Americans in a state of perpetual war-on-terror then exactly WHEN are these freedoms going to be brought back to life? How long will this thing last? Will there ever be a clearly defined end to this or will the "state of heightened alert" last for decades? How much more liberty will be sacrificed on the alter of "keep me safe, I'm frightened"? Does anyone care to question their leaders anymore?

At what point do these people say enough is enough? They act as though they have liberty to burn.

We are spoiled, apathetic, half-conscious and ripe for the power-mongers' plucking it would seem.

Yeah, it definitely makes me wonder about my children's future.

[Rowdee]

Well, Jeff, we generally agree on virtually everything :)

However, we part with the 'military tribunals'.....I recall that once upon a time the Fedgov established RICO laws--they seemed harsh, but we were assured they would be applied to those 'bad' guys, the Mafia.

Well, that assurance held for a while.....but now anti-baby killer protestors are being rounded up and tried using RICO laws!

I've also read where the 'income tax' was only going to be 3 or 5% when it was enacted, and would only affect the 'wealthy'......today we have a President who believes Government shouldn't take more than 33% of one's earnings!!!

So, the idea that a 'military tribunal' would only be used for foreigners doesn't hold much sway with me....perhaps not under this admin, but consider Pervert II having the ability to declare these tribunals, and then due to some half-assed emergency, and swamping of the regular court system, that all 'drug' cases would be henceforth handled under a military tribunal......well, we all know that 'druggies' are the scum of the earth, so we don't raise too much hell.....get an idea of where it could go?

Regards

[LSJohn]

The Executive Order calling for military tribunals for non-citizens involved in terorist activities is, IMHO, a called for and prudent action in times of war. These people are spies and sabotuers (sp) and need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

So who decides that they were "involved in terrorist activities"? I thought that was what trials were for. The President is going to decide before that individual has an opportunity to present a defense, offer evidence, confront accusers, or cross-examine witnesses.

Too much faith in individuals and too little in rule of law and too little concern over the question of the actual guilt of the accused, IMO.

[Boucheau]

"today we have a President who believes Government shouldn't take more than 33% of one's earnings...

Only one "huge" correction: the government swallows-up around 50% of the average Joes income when you add up all taxes, fees, surcharges, etc.. I guess it depends on how you define "income tax". My income is taxed over and over.

[FITZ]

If Clinton or Reno would have suggested "sneek and peak" search warrants

Clinton and Reno did far more than that, look at what they did to an AMERICAN group in Waco, they burned them up. I hope they do much more watching of foreign agents working in the US, but they need to protect the rights of American citizens while they do it.

[FITZ]

I agree, non-citizens do not have a right to come over here and plot against Americans and try to take over this country. The only rights they have is to go back to the places they pledge their allegience to. We have a right to work in our tall buildings without them hijacking our planes to use as bombs on us.

[goldstategop]

All I can say about Francis Boyle's criticism is liberals have no moral standing whatsoever to lecture to conservatives about the rule of law. They lost that honor when they all to a man and woman defended X42's violations of the rule of law during his term of office and went out of their way to prevent him from being removed from office as prescribed by the Constitution itself. And Boyle and Alan Dershowitz who both were so upset about impeachment are wailing today about how not being nice to Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts is an assault upon our Constitution and system of justice. Maybe its just me but I don't recall them being enraged at what former President Clinton did to his oath of office and the system of justice. And lets go further and dispose of their nonsense about the Geneva conventions. The Geneva conventions apply to LAWFUL combatants that is to soldiers organized in regular army formations and fighting according to the generally accepted rules of war. Terrorists are by definition UNLAWFUL combatants who commit atrocities against innocents by stealth and ambush and do not fight in accordance with the generally accepted rules of war. Now Boyle & Dershowitz may be shocked at this but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact and in war time it is perfectly legitimate to visit upon spies, saboteurs, and terrorists summary justice. Which is about all the justice Bin Laden and his friends should and deserve to get in the course of this war.

[FITZ]

Yes, I have not heard of many liberals calling for an investigation of Hillary having those FBI files or the attack on US citizens in Waco who had not harmed anyone. Funny how rights suddenly matter to liberals when it's the right of foreigners to conduct a Jihad against Americans on US soil.

[borntodiefree]

How do we know they are tied to the terrorist. Because Heir Bush and his minions have "said so". I don't think so, Americans don't have inalienable rights...all people do...The evidence must be "shown" otherwise they'll just start picking people off the street "oh your a terrorist and suported (whoever)".

If they are tried and convicted, then hangem, torchem, slam them into a wall at 400 miles an hour, draw and quarter, electricute, gas, and whatever else is deemed appropriate.

One other little important fact.

The Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8, states that Congree shall have the power (not the president)

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

May I suggest that we do not allow our anger towards these nut cases override justice and our cry for liberty to be stiffled by quick fixes that can and will be used against us.

[BERZERKER]

bump

[Graewoulf]

No indeed!

I am accusing the libs for nominating lib judges to run our courts, and eventually becoming the majority on The Nine Supremes! Then, using their "living document" method of interpreting the Constitution, they made Swiss Cheese out of the Constitution crafted by our founding fathers.

Right now, in America, there is no "speedy and public trial." Our justice system is a joke, thanks to decades of lib judges nibbling holes in the excellent Constitution of our forefathers.

Hence, this tribunal system will, for the terrorists, restore a speedy trial, though perhaps not to public.