Skip to comments.PAUL: War on terror doesn’t justify retreat on rights
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 link to the rest of the article is here http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/war-on-terror-doesnt-justify-retreat-on-rights/?page=all#pagebreak
A House of assholes save Rand and the rest that voted for Liberty.
What about the War on Energy? The EPA wants to OUTLAW drilling for shale oil and gas!
So tell me again how the Republicans are the defenders of the Constitution.
On everything outside of foreign policy, RP is 100% on the money.
Who said they were?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
BOLSHEVIK AND MENSHEVIK COMRADES AGREE ON SUPPRESSION OF COUNTERREVOLUTIONARIES AND REVANCHIST SABOTEURS AND WRECKERS!
(How is that party take over coming along?)
Senator Mark Kirk even read the Constitution aloud in the Senate before the vote.
And then SB1867 weren't bad enough, they tried to tack another amendment on to that would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror. Rand actually stopped that one from happening.
Something is seriously wrong here.
Too bad the ‘right’ Paul isn’t running. Rand is much more balanced than Ron.
Is there a accounting on who voted for it and who voted against it?
I was shocked to see Kirk vote correctly.
Charlie Sheen is more balanced than Ron.
Good thing is, if it passes the house, there is going to be a lot of pressure from Obama’s left base to veto this bill, at least the draconian provisions. If he doesn’t it will hurt him big time.
...I'm done with these clowns. Time to check the Criminal list.
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.
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.
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"?
Perhaps of interest...
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.
2. The Treasury Department should absolutely NOT be in the business of "licensing" lawyers in any event, no matter what the excuse. We managed to have the Stalinist Rosenbergs who conspired to turn nuclear weapons secrets over to the soviets represented very well by first rate and independent trial lawyers (likely communists as well but that is irrelevant) on the Rosenbergs' way to the electric chair without the republic collapsing. See Louis Nizer's The Implosion Conspiracy. And Stalin was generally conceded to be a bit more of a threat than Al Qaeda and its Islamonutcase allies.
2. Separation of powers: Lawyers are all officers of the judicial branch of government. If lawyers need to be "licensed" by the executive branch of government before they dare represent the popularly damned in courts, then will the executive next decide that it must license citizens before they can be elected to Congress? Before, as criminal defendants, they can plead not guilty and contest charges? If Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary in Obamaville, is belatedly indicted for income tax evasion, will his department claim a right to "license" prosecutors to prosecute him? Time for the ACLU to grow a pair and either put up or shut up. They don't need a Treasury Department "license" to represent the ACLU itself in an action against Comrade Obozo, his Treasury Department, and anyone else who would like to claim that lawyers representing clients can be, on that basis alone, be regarded as co-conspirators. Temporary and permanent injunction, temporary and permanent mandamus, declaratory judgment and maybe even an action in quo warranto alleging that even considering much less granting or denying such licenses by the Treasury Department (no less) exceeds any legitimate power of the department or any executive department and is therefore ultra vires. It wouldn't have taken three seconds for the ACLU to seek such remedies against Nixon or Reagan if they had tried such arrogant extension of executive power.
3. Anwar Awlaki's kid: If he is not even collateral damage (as he must not be if murdered in some dining joint with his teenaged friends while blissfully unaware of dad's previous demise). The kid was an American citizen and the government seems to have had no excuse to assassinate him. This distinguishes his death from that of Osama bin Laden's on both counts. Due process was owed to the kid and not to bin Laden (who should have been bathed in pig blood on film before burial.) I would also imagine that any statute of limitations on legal actions to seek damages to redress the kid's death would be suspended while the executive branch tries to intimidate lawyers as officers of the judiciary from bringing such actions.
4. For actual terrorists convicted after full due process, slow death by scimitar would seem an appropriate substitute punishment instead of utterly unspectacular and unsatisfying death by injection. If necessary, delay the punishment during any period during which the convict is providing useful intel for us to kill his/her colleagues in terrorist crime. Also scimitars will generally trump jackboots and should be legally deployed whenever jackboots have been against those deploying the jackboots.
5. I am a recovering attorney and generally no fan of the court system but it DOES have its uses AND its OBLIGATIONS. My dissatisfactions with the judicial branch are no excuse for that branch to shirk its obligations. If we have had to make believe for nearly forty years that women have a "right" to hire abortionists to murder the unborn just because SCOTUS says so, then the judiciary should step up to the plate and show its imperial sweep in matters that count and are actually its responsibility like enforcing due process of law and protecting its officers from illegal intimidation by the Treasury Department or any other executive bureaucracy.
Note however that the criminal cleric al Awlaki AND his son were killed AFTER initiation of the lawsuit. The judiciary has an obligation to prove its own gonads by recognizing that the airstrikes against two American citizens (however reprehensible excuses for human beings) are a direct challenge to judicial authority. What would the judiciary do if an apparently state statute authorized governor of a state ordered state police and militia to militarily attack an abortion mill and kill all the perps of the abortions (right down to the receptionists and the janitors and the security guards) on the perfectly sensible theory that they are engaged in a conspiracy in serial homicide and present a clear and present danger of continuing their abortions, Roe vs. Wade or no Roe vs. Wade? Without modification of Roe vs. Wade, the judiciary would go nuclear. Due process is quite explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution unlike "reproductive rights" or anti-reproductive "rights" for that matter.
Agree re Roe v and Lockerbie worth a second bombing.
But from what I can see re the Awlaki case, (even before this new piece of legislation that says US citizens on US soil can be indefinitely detained) — yes one might successfully fight for gaining some legal right to defend yourself once you’ve been put on the government’s kill list, but when and if you win that right, it may only be after you are dead — which does pretty much defeat the purpose.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I despise the al Awlakis of this world, but a citizen is a citizen and entitled to the rights of a citizen under our Constitution. People (not I) may argue as to whether we have God-given rights. It is not particularly permissible or rational for anyone to ignore those rights that are enumerated in the Constitution and, above all, where the rights are personal such as the right to due process and protect the individual FROM government overreaching.
The judge (Irving Kaufman) in the Rosenberg case was a Jewish man lest anyone suggest successfully that anti-Semitism was a motive for the prosecution. That judge's family had to move, I believe, to a log cabin in rural Vermont, for their safety during the trial because of threats. No one would have blamed Kaufman for begging off but that would have weakened the judiciary.
Two leading prosecutors of the Rosenbergs were also Jewish for probably similar reasons: Irving Saypol and Roy Cohn. The Stalinists threw every sort of attack at the government, the judge, the prosecutors, the prosecution witnesses, etc., but to no avail because these prosecutors and the judge had the backbone to vindicate judicial authority and the espionage laws of the United States. The younger defense attorney of a father and son team dropped dead at an early age not long after the trial with his exhaustion in the defense effort being a major cause. The defense lawyers were also a credit to the bar regardless of their ideology or motives.
I seldom wish the ACLU well given its history but this suit against Treasury is a serious exception to my rule. They deserve credit for trying and MAJOR credit if they win. I do not see Stephen Breyer or Ruth Ginsberg siding with the government on this. If Sotomayor, Kagan or any other justice agrees with Obozo on this, their resignations should be submitted along with their opinions and they should be pilloried ina future book entitled: Profiles in Treason and Cowardice.
Bump for my education. Thanks.
Let's face it, none of us really give a darn about Awlaki personally; the interest is purely selfish. It's that if they can deny Awlaki his rights as a citizen without trial, without even charges, and just kill him based on a presidential order -- and even worse kill his 16 yr old son who was guilty of absolutely nothing -- then the same can be done to any of us when it's politically expedient.
What blows me away about all of this is that when you strip away all the rhetoric, there really is nothing unique about this situation with Islam. America has been here before -- with communism.
During the Cold War, we had communists infiltrating. Your references to the Rosenbergs was apt -- and when they were guilty of crime, we successfully prosecuted them and executed them. And yet, Americans rejected living in a police state to "protect us against communists". They rejected McCarthism when they saw it's excesses that persecuted people who just maybe, might have some "guilt by association", but who were really innocent. (One of those people was a friend of mine.) Today, we the sheeple seem to blindly accept it -- as long as they are after "the other guy and not me".
I desperately wish that Conservatives would get together and sponsor an ACLU equivalent, because Liberals should not have the only moral high ground on civil liberty issues. If anything, Obamacare and laws like this S1867 prove that.