Posted on 12/01/2011 6:51:21 PM PST by Bokababe
James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.” Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During the Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed. Fortunately, those actions were reversed after the war.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
The only rights American’s associated with Al Qaeda have is not to be tortured for evidence and then summarily shot and buried in a pig carcass.
Crazy Uncle Paul is right again...
Non-citizen combatants against the United States need be provided no such consideration. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Citizens ALLEGED to have committed wartime crimes against the US should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and enjoy each and every right guaranteed them by the Constitution. Other "persons" should likewise be regarded as innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and receive the lesser class of rights afforded them under the same constitution. In either class (citizen or merely person) anyone convicted of crimes in assistance of the enemies of this nation in wartime should receive exemplary punishment under law.
We should reject any analysis that makes accusation of foreign combatant status tantamount to renunciation of citizenship.
Little Johnny Jihad from Marin County, California, should have received the death penalty upon legitimate conviction although a citizen (and perhaps BECAUSE he is a citizen). He was taken prisoner in combat against us. He ought to have been made an example.
Maybe Rand Paul will someday run for POTUS. His father is an idiot. Rand, however, seems to be earning a far better reputation and consideration as one who differs from the crackpot that sired him.
Me too!
I can’t figure out if he’s the only one crazy enough to put a stop to all this or if he’s the only one sane enough.
It’s a strange enigma...
Don’t take this the wrong way or anything but I really, really, hope that one day soon you or someone you love is accused of being associated with Al Qaeda.
Nothing but love for ya...
Neither of them are the least bit "nuts". Ron's been married to the same woman for over 50 years, three of his five kids are physicians, all of them are screamingly normal and there hasn't been a whiff of scandal from any of them -- that spells mental and emotional stability from the patriarch on down.
One thing that both Ron and Rand have been saying for years: War/Economics/Civil Rights are all connected. Too many people are naive or misguided enough to think that this War on Terror, our economy and our Civil Rights under the Constitution are a completely separate issues -- as this bill proves, they are not, they bleed into one another. And frankly, as an American, I am far more afraid of losing my Civil Rights under the Constitution than I am of any terrorist -- because one is just "the threat of the day" and having grown up during the Cold War, I know that those threats change over time. But giving up our Civil Rights permanently changes the nature of this country -- and that threat is real, immediate and all inclusive.
My dream ticket would be Ron Paul/Rand Paul -- the elder for his trustworthiness, political knowledge and political experience and the younger for his consistency, continuity and a path to an eventual successful run for the White House. Because IMHO, the threat from within is far great right now than the threat from without.
When this economy really crashes -- and it will -- who do you want in charge? The jackboots who've already robbed you blind and will again to give to someone "more worthy" (loyal to them) or someone who still gives a damn about preserving the Constitution?
Graham, McCain take down
My youngest brother was 5 blocks from the WTC on 9/11. He walked all the way home to New Jersey that day. That doesn’t mean that he or I are willing to watch the Republicans or the Democrats crap all over the 5th Amendment in the name of “security”.
Anyone who voted for this monstrosity should be stripped of office and run out of town on a rail. Anyone supporting it is no conservative. Period.
Have a nice weekend.
I am sorry for your loss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjVgWNzQnk&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Great speech by Rand. Best political donation I ever made.
F U McLame!!!!
What courts? This is the right of the government to snatch you up and ship you off to detention indefinitely without involving the courts, without proving your guilt -- that's the point -- no due process, no habeas corpus, none of that. The difference is now they have extended "the battlefield" to the US. They alone decide if you are "a threat" in the same manner that Obama took out Anwar al Awlaki and his 16 yr old son without even charging either of them with anything -- and denied both the right to answer to their alleged crimes. (OK, Awlaki was a pig who likely deserved to die, but his 16 yr old kid did nothing that we know of, was an American citizen born in the US & he was murdered for no stated reason other than for being Awalaki's son.)
What in the hell happened to "fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here"?
FUJM!!! FULG!!!
Perhaps of interest...
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/
Anwar al Awlaki undoubtedly was a pig who deserved to die but even he, much less his sixteen year old son, deserved due process of law since, if he was the one I think he was, he was born in New Mexico and therefore was an American citizen. His son, as his son, was also an American citizen. Now, the son was not "murdered" unless Obozo and his footstools were aware that the son was present and endangered by his proximity to the father. Call the son's death manslaughter or negligent homicide or collateral damage. If anyone intended to kill the son, he deserved due process and obviously did not get due process. By contrast, Ronaldus Maximus ordered airstrikes against Moammar el Qaddafi (or however he spelled his infamous name) and the airstrikes caused a severe head would to the dictator and killed at least one of his daughters. Neither were American citizens and neither were entitled to due process of law. She was "collateral damage." This was payback for Lockerbie and for bombing a German nightclub where American GIs were killed. Then Connecticut US Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., dining luxuriously at a swank French restaurant in DC that night, lost what little remained of his mind over Reagan's attacks on Weicker's admired foreign friend and Libyan dictator.
The Constitution trumps the statutes, the executive, the legislature, as it should be and the ACLU knows how to involve the courts in enforcing it. Since we are talking about protecting America's enemies, the ACLU will do so.
Ah, but it may be complained that no one knew that Obozo was sending forces after al Awlaki. That is unfortunate for al Awlaki but it does provide a basis for litigation seeking extraordinary remedies by way of injunction (temporary and permanent), mandamus (temporary and permanent), declaratory judgment (all to restrain future activity) and for damages for the family of the deceased. A successful motion for summary judgment in a civil action by the heirs will obviate the necessity of providing a jury trial as to liability and very possibly as to amount of damages (I am not sure on that point).
When al Awlaki was terminated, we WERE fighting them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here. It was not done constitutionally but it was done quite efficiently.
I am not sure how familiar you are with the details of this Awalaki case, but the son was not hit at the same time as his father, rather two weeks later while dining with some teenage friends. There is no indication that the son or any of his friends were terrorists when they were hit by the drone strike. The son left the Yemeni capital and went into the mountains looking for his father; he left before it was all over the news and apparently didn't know that his dad was already dead.
As for Awlaki. himself, if you are a lawyer or a legal fan, this one is a real trip.
Anwar Awalaki's father had requested that the ACLU represent his son's legal interests. But once they slapped that terrorist label on Awlaki, the ACLU had to request "a license" from the Treasury Department to represent Awlaki lest they be considered "associated with terror" themselves. Treasury ultimately denied them the license, so piece of crap or not, Awlaki was allowed no legal remedy once he was put on that "kill list".
I'm no fan of scimitars -- but neither am I a fan of jackboots.
Rand Paul on Hannity tonight discussing SB 1867. Monica Crowley in for Hannity foolishly defended the egregious bill. Rand on the hand provided cogent criticism.
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.