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?
Innocent until proven guilty. It wouldn't be the first time the FBI or the CIA screwed up and wrongly accused someone.
Congress has not declared war (its exclusive right, see constitution). Who would they declare war against ? Al-queda is not specific to one nation.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist who attacked a fed gov't building, should he have been tried by a military tribunal ?
If an American national was picked up in a foriegn country and dragged before a military tribunal where evidence against him was kept secret, he wasn't able to select his own lawyer, there was no jury, etc. The US gov't would strongly disapprove, there would be sanctions, presidential phone calls, etc.
Why should we be any different ?
There are three equal branches of gov't Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. None can over ride the other.
Which didn't keep the Reform Party from making a considerable splash that might have grown into something if it hadn't self-destructed playing 'personalities'. I have every sympathy with the libertarian movement but the LP, as a party, simply doesn't work and gets in the way of anything that could.
I have yet to see a specific reference (i.e. proof) that what the President has done is unconstitutional. In other words, show me the money.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES September 14, 2001 Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed [bold mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
==============
Sometimes a rose is a rose. Congress seems to be surprised he is using the power they granted him.
I guess it depends on your definition of "appropriate". Note: this was not a declaration of wor.
-sigh- If you are going to comment on my comment, at least read what I said first.
What I said was that basically I didn't worry about deportation (I am not here illegally)I don't worry about people wanting to listen to my phone conversations cause there is nothing anyone would want to hear. I meant that those people who ARE here illegally or those having something to hide from the authorities are most likely to be the ones most worried. And since you apparently didn't read my full text, I also said I didn't necessarily agree with all that's happening with this. I don't agree with alot of what the govt. does, especially for the last 8 years, but I don't work myself into a lather over it. Remember, my life revolves around kid's basketball practice and what grandma had to eat today ; ) I get my excitement from FR.
The governement works to serve you. The police and federal agencies would never abuse their powers. They would never consider using their enhanced powers to take advantage of American people. Freerepublic has taught me that the cops dont make these kind of errors, nor do they excercise bad judgement.
Afterall if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about. When the feds come kick in your door and pin you to the ground just remember that its for your own good. Try to remember while they violate your rights and trash your house that if you have nothing to hide, the whole incident is for your own benefit.
To be perfectly honest with you, no. I thought what J. Reno did sucked, but I do believe the Davidian's were pretty wacko to begin with. However, they certainly didn't deserve what happened to them.
IMO, if David Koresh hadn't been a pedophile, and had the adults in that place protected the children from him, it never would have happened in the first place. Just because someone thinks of themselves soverign, or God, or whatever he called himself, doesn't give him the right to skirt the law of the land, especially where children are concerned. BUT, before you freak out and flame me - it ALSO doesn't give the government the right to burn the place to the ground, with innocent people inside. I think it was a power thing between Reno and Koresh, and Janet wanted to show her b@lls. Only, it showed her lack of brains. I don't think anyone thought what happened there was right. But I don't think DK was any innocent flower either.
It was posturing, pure and simple.[ I also believe this is an attempt to further discredit Ashcroft, but that is another thread.] Regardless of whether or not you agree with his decision, when facts are discussed instead of opinions and shoulds and ought to's, it seems the President was within his rights to do so and acted within the law.
Another angle, why should the President go to Congress to get something he already has? We have seen the way the GOP has rolled on major issues since 9/11.Remember, the GOP on the Hill are eunichs.
*Throws stuff at picture of Harry Browne*
There is no time limit on these laws. Nor do I see any prospect of imposing time limits after the fact (at least don't count on it!). So do you still support these laws? If you do, then what you said about time limits is really irrelevent. Your support is unconditional.
Idiots like this woman are among the most dangerous people in America. Repeal the 19th amendmant!
Thank you for that clarification.
I am debating the Military Tribunal (which has nothing to do with the Patriot Act). I believe the President was within his authority to do so. I like the idea of a military tribunal because it keeps innocent American citizens out of the mix. [ Unlike the Patriot Act which targets all Americans.]
I watched the committe hearing on the Tribunal today. I came away with a presentation of facts and law from the Assit AG and a bunch of "would haves, should haves, ought to have's" from the Senators. I have yet to hear any of them say "The President acted out his scope of Power based on this fact, this law, etc." I heard whines. I heard posturing. But I did not hear cold, hard facts.
I am trying to be responsible by making my judgements based on facts presented.
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.