Judge and Jury. There is a major difference between law enforcement agents and the military. The military, by constitutional directive, is empowered to fight enemy combatants, law enforcement is charged with keeping the peace and arresting criminals.
On the battlefield, soldiers are given the authority of judge, jury and executioner. When engaged, soldiers have to determine if the "suspect" is an enemy and then decie what amount of force must be exerted in order to saegaurd their lives and accomplish their mission. If the current directives from their superiors is to take prisoners, then a soldier will take steps to use non-lethal force when it does not endanger themselves or their unit. But the bottom line is their is no judge, no warrants, no juries on the battlefield. Their job is to find the enemy and kill the enemy (or take captives for intelligence operations).
Whether we like it or not, the U.S. proper IS a battlefield in the WOT. There are enemies in this country - some "soldiers", some "propagandists", and some "apologists". If these enemies were located anywhere in the world, other than here, they would be engaged militarily and killed without remorse, without warrant and without judicial oversight. To date, the current administration is doing everything in its power to fight the enemy on this battlefield without unleashing the power of the military. He has opted to try to let all of us continue to live our lives with the least amount of inconvenience.
If the President decided, or decides in the future, that the threat is too great to continue to allow our citizens to live in "bliss", he has the constitutional authority to declare Martial Law and militarize any portion of the country. If, for instance, al qaeda was able to set off a nuclear weapon in this country, the niceties would be thrown out. The Military would be brought in and every Muslim, person of Middle East origin and anyone else who has shown sympathy for the enemy would be rounded up and confined. And every building and city in America would have not protection from Military operations to hunt down and kill the enemy.
We are in a state of war. We can choose to fight this war on our soil with an iron fist or we can choose to fight this war with the least amount of inconvenience to our citizens. Right now, Bush and our security apparatus is trying to do the later, but they could just as easily do the former. American Citizens need to realize the additional efforts and risks involved in fighting this way and if their civil liberties are infringed upon for the greater good, then get over it - because you could just as easily be sitting in a stadium under armed gaurd.
Bush is pushing the limits, but not doing anything that anyone with a little common sense wouldn't DEMAND that he do given the current state of war. So here's what we should all expect. If you are involved in any activity that might put you in a position to be communicating or working with our enemy, you're gonna be on the radar. And you should be happy you are, not leaking to the NYTimes.
Excellent post!
Until the above actually happens and Martial Law is declared, I don't agree that the US proper is part of the "battlefield!" It will be the battlefield of last resort, thanks to a most intelligent prosecution of the WOT so far by THIS administration.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, those of us out here in the west have seen enough clumsy heavy handed action by federal agents in the recent past of the Clinton maladministration that we're more than happy to wait for the real necessity of ANY declaration of "Martial Law!" Believe you me!!!
Many of us out here in the west are not so quick to seek security at the cost of our liberty. Maybe we can remember the wild, wild west better than those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in the eastern seaboard, who knows?