Posted on 12/03/2011 8:51:43 AM PST by ventanax5
The Tea Party’s limited-government, constitutional heart is in the right place. But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
The defense-authorization bill currently under congressional consideration contains some unremarkable, largely redundant provisions about the treatment of enemy combatants. Naturally, the now-familiar alliance of leftists and libertarian extremists — self-proclaimed “constitutionalists” all — attacked with their signature “sky is falling” equanimity. On Wednesday, my column addressed some of the more hysterical arguments posited by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano. The real action, however, was taking place on the Senate floor, where Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (R., Ky.) squared off against John McCain (R., Ariz.), leader of the Republican party’s transnational-progressive wing. Sen. McCain, along with another tranzy, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), sponsored the detention provisions — which are thus collectively known as the McCain-Levin amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I look at this way - no way a person ever gets 100% of what they want, paul included,
So say he was elected but got 50% of what he wanted - would you be ok wit that vs 50% of Newt/Romney ?
>> 911 was the fault of govt incompetence, not lack of police state powers.
Anyone willing to give the govt more powers over us is a traitor. Screw them.>>
You made two statements that make sense in and of themselves, but you do not necessarily reach the right conclusion - because for one thing you assume that “them” is always the same “they” and it is not.
Certainly 9-11 was the result of what was largely still a Clinton era defense apparatus. And yes, it was incompetence with a lot of political correctness thrown in. HOWEVER, and this is where you are somewhat wrong - it was also partially the result of the Church Commission gutting of our intelligence services.
AND, another place where you are wrong - this is NOT an increase of power in the sense you think it is. And Rand Paul knows that, but argues as if otherwise.
We are heading in to some terrible times. if you think the govt should have the ability to declare us terrorist sympatizers and cohorts without trial, habeaus corpus, etc - just wow.
Two Questions:
1. What law stopped the FBI from following up on the tip from the flight school owner about the students only wanting to lear to fly but not take off or land?
2. What law was responsible for INS approving ATTA’s obviously faked and bogus Visa Application?
The Tea Party’s limited-government, constitutional heart is in the right place. But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
So we’re supposed to believe that the US Constitution self nulifies when ever the federal government says so? People need to remember that the constitution was written because the states didn’t trust a national government. History has proven that distrust to be well founded. The federal government has become a greater threat than the Islamofascists are.
Are you directing this post at me?
That is not me, FYI.
What war? The “war on terror” is a never ending bs justification bs for this the same way the “war on drugs” never ends.
Oh yeah, I’ll take Paul, he is acceptable. Plus with the nation broke I don’t think we can afford too much more interventionism anyway. I think events are going to shape our policies for at least 5 or 10 years. We will not have a lot of control over these events since we a broke.
No. Was speaking of those who have almost a blood lust to give obama and the govt any power over us whatsoever. Those people make me want to puke, especially posting here. They dont want freedom - they want a gestapo
Paul and Bachmann are the only two I trust.
Sarah was my first choice, but she is not running.
Deep down inside, most people know Ron Paul is right on most things, but they can’t bring temselves to say it because Rush, Vanity, BOR, and the others mock him.
You are making straw arguments. You are not using reading comprehension. You refuse to acknowledge where you and I have common ground because you obviously are itching for a “I’m the purist SOB here.”
Go have your straw debate with yourself.
Really? Tell me what Straw Argument I made?
Inventing new and stupid labels (with bizarre sexual connotations) is a sign that Andrew McCarthy probably doesn't have much of an argument and wants to substitute mockery.
He should go back to making movies.
Ahh, thanks for clarifying.
Much agreed.
First, you failed to recognize that I did in fact say that incompetence on the part of the Govt was part of the 9-11 fiasco and went off on two tangents about government incompetence as if I had denied it. That’s a straw argument.
Then you assumed I would be ok with the most agregious abuses possible under the most aggressive intpretation of the law - which is classic (normally from whiny libs) straw false choice arguments.
And you failed to address at all the cynical way Rand himself has obfuscated some of the facts so as to strengthen in melodramatic fashion the nature of this debate. That’s straw by ommission.
Straw, false choices, exaggerated circumstances - and not a single syllable of of a whiff of a chance at some real ideological discussion.
>> Deep down inside, most people know Ron Paul is right on most things, but they can’t bring temselves to say it because Rush, Vanity, BOR, and the others mock him. >>
Boy, you are full of straw today aren’t you. Let me correct it: most people who think the Pauls are zany nuts on some subjects are quick to point out that they are right on many other issues - BUT it’s the Paul bots who refuse to believe that these precious perfect human beings could ever be wrong on anything.
You had that one bass ackwards.
I haven't listened to Mark Levin in a while. I wonder if he is still playing kissy-face with Rand Paul, as he was a few months ago... which is what prompted me to stop listening to Levin. I doubt that he would now have the courage to confront Sen. Paul.
Its about what is possible with this. and sorry to tell you - many are more cynical than ever that our govt will do the worst things imaginable to retain power.
As you'll find with most of these security uber alles types, it's only the American citizens they don't like. Of course, they will cry the loudest when the Feds come and take their cousin for having too many guns or their neighbor for reading the constitution in the public square or some other activity the federal government finds extreme. But so long as its one of those Americans they don't like, it's all good.
I noticed that too, but that is not surprising coming from liebertarians and their fellow travelers; they always enable leftism.
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.