Posted on 09/11/2002 7:33:04 PM PDT by chunjay
Wednesday, September 04, 2002 Scary Thought Joel Miller | Ready to go to jail for thinking the wrong ideas?
------------------- God bless Nat Hentoff—if only most conservatives cared half as much about traditional American liberties as this "liberal." His recent Village Voice column is a perfect case in point. It should make you worry:
Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"—which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado. Guess we forgot about that whole Fifth Amendment thing. …
And the first one, too, according to a recent Associated Press story. Ready to wet your pants? "Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll."
Pollsters "found that 48 percent of respondents agreed the government should have the freedom to monitor religious groups in the interest of national security—even if that means infringing upon the religious freedom of the group's members." The survey also found a big drop in the number of folks who think the press should be free to criticize U.S. military and its actions. "Fifty-seven percent were supportive this year, compared to 69 percent in 2001."
This brings me to my scary thought for the day: (1) So-called "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely. (2) A bigger hunk of the American people do not want to allow the press to criticize military actions—from criticizing the good guys to supporting the bad guys is a short leap in the mind of many. (3) And the scary thought? Jailing journalists (like Hentoff) because they are not supportive of the various incarnations of the war on terror. Scary thought corollary: Jailing preachers who are not supportive. If you think they're all covered by the First Amendment, realize that could be a temporary reality.
Scary? Yes indeed.
http://www.razormouth.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=all&id=1031132855
Also check out: http://www.enjoyinggod.org and http://www.chunjay.com
It's not new so it's nothing I care to get worked up about since the country was not ruined when some of these same rights were violated during the Civil War, WWI and WWII. Simply put, if we don't win the war, our conquerers will give our civil rights even less regard than those now in power.
3,000 folks died last year because an organized premeditated attack was carried out on our shores. If suspending a few civil liberties or detaining a few suspects without access to an attorney makes a repeat performance less likely, I'm all for it in the short term until the threat has been identified and eliminated.
Now, before you call me a statist and start quoting Ben Franklin at me (I'm getting used to these kneejerk rebuttals by now), what I advocate are temporary messures to increase security until the hostile threat has been vanquished. After each previous war, the restrictions were lifted, life returned to normal and the Constitution proceeded healthy and vibrant. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no point in carrying on a discussion.
Folks are fighting and dying overseas to defend our country and if it means you or I get hassled a little more while the war is being fought, frankly that's a miniscule price to pay compared to what others are sacrificing. A real patriot would understand that implicitly.
And I'm one of the 48%. We're dealing with Islamists who use mosques as fronts for their terrorist operations. Don't like it? Leave the country. You won't be missed.
Ok...relax....no one's going to hurt you......everything's going to be alright.....back to the rubber room you go.
No, it is not. We don't even have a declaration of war, so how could it be? And don't talk about responding to an emergency--it's been over a year.
No, it is not. We don't even have a declaration of war, so how could it be?
Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Come to think of it, there was no declaration of war then either. A declaration of war would have involved a de facto recognition of the Confederacy as a foreign power.
Show me where in the Constitution that Suspension of Habeas Corpus can take place only when a declaration of war has been made. Also show me where there is a statute of limitations in effect on the Suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus can occur when there has been an invasion and the public safety demands it. The hijackers entered this country on false terms and conducted warlike actions from the interior of this country. I call that an invasion. The public safety demands that those suspected of hijacking airplanes be restrained.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
A declaration of war was unnecessary. And since you declare war on other countries, not rebellious sections of your own, a declaration of war was not even appropriate.
Yes, the RATS certainly have been scurrying about lately, haven't they. They get especially verminous this time of year. :^)
Oh I get it now... FDR was in league with the Mossad and Big Oil. Of course it makes perfect sense now < /sarcasm>
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.