Posted on 11/27/2001 4:08:35 AM PST by from occupied ga
Many conservatives, liberals and libertarians are protesting the numerous invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush administration have imposed during the past two months.
But without realizing it, many of the protestors brought these invasions on themselves.
This is America?
I do share their concerns, however.
First, Congress rammed through an "anti-terrorism" bill that violates the civil liberties of all Americans, not just terrorists.
The new law allows federal officials to search your home when you're not present and not even tell you your home has been searched. You could come home one day and find your computer, file cabinets and legal papers have disappeared. You'd naturally think it was a burglary, but the burglars would be government employees (shades of Watergate).
Warrants can be issued in secret, and you may not be allowed to see a warrant – or contest it – covering a search of your property.
This is America?
Government officials can go into any company anywhere and search records of your purchases and credit history, discover the websites you've visited, or monitor your e-mail – without evidence of a crime and without telling you, and they can order the companies not to tell you about the search.
Then the Bush administration, apparently invoking the divine right of kings, decided that people can be tried and executed by secret courts (using secret evidence not available for you to refute), that government agents can eavesdrop on attorney-client conversations, and that federal agents can conduct searches without judicial oversight.
This is America?
And understand that the so-called "War on Terrorism" is only two months old. This is just the beginning. What's still to come?
In previous wars, citizens were imprisoned for speaking out against the government, newspapers were closed for protesting the war, private publications were censored, and people of foreign ancestry were put in concentration camps. We have a lot to look forward to.
Don't be deceived!
The press implies that the new civil-liberties invasions will apply only to terrorists.
Not true.
They apply to you, because anyone can be suspected of being a terrorist – including you. In fact, the new definition of "suspected terrorist" includes people speaking out against government policies.
And if law-enforcement officials are to decide whose civil liberties will be denied, one of them may become convinced you're connected to the terrorists in some way, try you in a secret court, sentence you, imprison you and even execute you – with no opportunity for you to appeal the verdict or your sentence.
This is America?
An administration official told The Washington Post "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect anyone hiding and planning acts of violence." But what he meant was, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect anyone we suspect of hiding and planning acts of violence." They don't know who's actually guilty until after a civil, public trial – conducted with all the traditional rules of evidence. What they have arrogated to themselves is the power to decide whether or not you will be protected by the Constitution.
This is America?
If you're not frightened by this, you're simply not paying attention.
Won't be limited to a few people
Have you been told that some of these invasions apply only to aliens – or some other small group of people?
Don't be reassured. When has any invasion of liberty not been expanded to cover all people eventually?
The clearly unconstitutional RICO laws were supposed to apply only to organized crime – but hardly a single Mafia kingpin has been prosecuted using RICO, while abortion protestors and stockbrokers have been jailed by these laws. The clearly unconstitutional asset-forfeiture laws were only to nab big-time drug dealers, but all across America the property of innocent people has been seized.
It's only a matter of time until every new oppression applies to all Americans.
Why this happened
I said that many of those protesting these invasions brought this on themselves. How?
It's very simple.
Attorney General John Ashcroft justified the unconstitutional police-state tactics by saying, "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now."
And there you have it. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." Once you grant the government war-making powers, you grant the politicians the power to do anything they want. After all, you can't put your own personal liberty ahead of the good of the Fatherland, can you?
Congress didn't declare war. There were none of the usual pre-war negotiations to try to avoid going to war. We're not even at war with any specific nation. But just utter the magic word "war" and all your rights can be stolen from you.
So if you hollered for war, you hollered to have your rights taken away from you.
Who gave your rights away? You did – if you supported the idea that the politicians should be free to do anything they want to satisfy a national lust for revenge.
Isn't it time to start taking back your liberty?
I think you'd be the one in for the shock. Despite all the liberal squawking, American's are relieved there is finally some sort of crackdown on the illegals running amok in OUR country, as they have free to do under Clintoon.
So, if you were pres. what would YOU do to handle this mess? It's so easy to be an armchair coach. Although I don't necessarily agree on all that is going on, I'm glad I'm not in his shoes, having to make the decisions he is forced to make. The pressure he is under from all sides must be enormous. He must clean up the mess left behind from decades of denial and deals, and I think considering everything, he's done a decent job so far.
Plus despite all the promises from the Bush haters, I still am waiting for all those emmigrants leaving for free-er, greener pastures. The "out" door is still open, it's just the "in" door that's shut.
And look what happened---10 years later, the total destruction of the twin towers (not to mention the thousands of innocent American citizens).
Perhaps the networks need to do some serious replay of the video footage from the WTC & the Pentagon & a field in Pennsylvania. It has already become sterilized.
This was an Act of War committed against innocent civilans in the United States. An unprovoked Act of War. (Unless you belong to the blame America first crowd with Harry Browne) Not only were innocent civilans targeted, but also the Pentagon. Does anyone think Osamma yo mamma threw darts on a map and it just happened to hit the Pentagon?
In one morning we saw the destruction or attempted destruction of :
a. Our seat of military operations - Pentagon
b. Our President - White House
c. Our financial center - WTC
What more do some people need to convince them, osamma is not going to go away "by breaking the cycle of violence?" He wants to destroy us. I do not understand how this can be considered anything less than an act of war (should be declared). Nor do I understand how this should be settled by the judical system. This is a military issue to be covered by military law.
The fact that the old cop-and-spook wish list (almost exactly the same one Clinton tried to get after OKC) was shoved through while real security measures (e.g. CCW on aircraft for citizens who pass a background check and a competence test) are ignored indicates that the agenda is getting the wish list, not improving security.
How so? I don't feel targeted in the wake of this crack down, and neither does anyone I know. Then again, I don't know any illegal aliens or Islamic foreign nationals. It's pretty obvious they are targeting illegals. That's why they are all screaming because they are being deported. I don't worry about being deported. I don't worry about my conversations being listened to. (They'd be too bored to listen - kid's basketball practice and what my grandma had to eat today? - besides if you have a cordless phone, chances are someone, somewhere is listening) I think those most worried are those who have something to worry about.
How would a military tribunal changed anything ?
This is a military issue to be covered by military law.
Then congress needs to declare war (see constitution) we can't let president override the other branches just because we are involved in a military action.
Give it some time.....
Just for you:
When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. |
Yes it is , but not by posting incomplete-information. If you wish to properly analyze legislation, laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures, I can refer you to a 501(c)(3) Foundation that is engaged in R&D to prepare on-line analytical tools and pre-prepared editions of laws using friendly and smart information technology techniques that substantially enhance informed consent. It makes it possible for everyone to become legally informed about any issue at the click of the mouse. And I am not speaking about the law text that you can acquire and drown yourself in simply by going to house.gov. The information technology is advanced and proprietary. It turns the flood into a manageable and controllable stream of pertinent information - that is the specific information you desire to know - without all the non-pertinent info that surrounds it. Currently it can only be used by private individuals who consent to a trade secret agreement. The government, ofcourse, can seize it in the name of national security. I wouldn't know if they have already done so, but I do know that the owner has a patent pending - and like all claims to advanced information technology - it's awesome. Really - it's the only information technology innovation that effectively and efficiently addresses the need for international and domestic legal intelligence and the rapid growth in the flood of global law information.
BTW, if you wish to submit a comment on how you would like the world of laws, rules, and regulations to improve so that you can be an expert without the training of a lawyer, submit your comment here. . .
Then congress needs to declare war (see constitution) we can't let president override the other branches just because we are involved in a military action.
That's right...see Constitution, the President of the United Staes is Commander of the Armed Forces.....make the connecion if you can. Armed Forces, Pentagon, Attack by a Foreign National on OUR GOVERNMENT for God's sake.
Like it or not, the President is not reaching out of his scope of power for this, nor is he subverting the Constitution. Unless I have been given false information, the President does not need a declared war for this. These monsters are foreign terrorists, not innocent American citizens and I, for one, am damned glad they will be tried in the military tribunal and not on the OJ Osamma network. I suppose you would have supported bringing the planner to Pearl Harbor to trial?
How would a military tribunal changed anything ?
Mmmmm...justice would not have taken 10 years and I would not be paying to keep him incarerated for the rest of his life (maybe Hillary will pardon him when she needs the Islamic vote) and hey, would be dead.
Doesn't give him the right to circumvent the judicial system.
Congress can declare war, but, it doesn't give them the right to expand search and seizure laws, wiretapping laws, etc. (see Patriot Act signed by Pres. Bush)
What if the Feds decided that we would all be safer from terrorism if we banned handguns, I bet you would be the first person to wave the constitution around.
The Military Tribunals are a separate issue. I am in favor of them because, Thank God and pass the Mashed Potatoes, it is the one thing separates innocent civilians from foreign nationals who commit or plot to commit an act of war against this country.
This was not your everyday, garden variety domestic crime, nor was it an act against humanity. It was an act of war against this nation. War criminals are not to be tried in a non- military judical system. Period. End of story. Much of this country needs a reality check---military law is not bound by the same rules & regulations in our judical system.
Granted, perhaps the case could be made that had the attack been limited to the WTC, the judical system would be appropriate. But they attacked Washington, DC. They attacked our government with the intention of severly limiting our ability to respond. Had it not been for the brave souls on Flight 93, either the White House or The Capitol would be ashes. What more would you need to convince you? This was an attack on our military forces. President Bush, being Commander in Chief is acting in accordance to his proper role.
George Washington used military tribunals and if memory serves, he might have had something to do with the founding of this nation.
In fact, Bush will get tons of mileage out of terminating them as soon as possible
...before the next Presidential Election. (that's for sure);^)
The alternative is to become a sitting duck, and eventually have you screaming bloody murder that the government is unable to protect us.
This is supposed to be part of the Terrorist's Handbook. Get the people riled up and revolt.
It ain't gonna happen though because we have elected a real MAN in the White House.
It makes me want to say, "...how dare you question Dubya's motives?"
I'm a terrible cynic, but I KNOW George W. Bush loves America and what it stands for. He's not keeping the world waiting while he jerks-off in an Oval Office sink.
Why do people scream for their rights to be taken away by the external authority state under the guises of "safety", which of course is never achieved???
Why isn't your freedom more important than anything???
Because if you aren't free, then you are a slave...
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.