Posted on 12/27/2011 7:25:47 AM PST by VU4G10
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”
“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Due process for Americans, no brainer.
No the reason is because there is a fear of liberal Courts. Not because foreigners have Constitutional rights but because there is a fear that a Court could try and grant them these rights.
And I do not at all buy into the BS that this brings Gitmo to every neighborhood. It is more of the same BS trolled out by the likes of Ron Paul and Code Pink. We were told the same BS about the Patriot Act (we were all going to lose our freedom), etc….
Ron Paul is right about a lot more than he is wrong about.
I say BS. This is the same type of garbage that was claimed about the Patriot Act and the survellience of enemy communications across our borders. Each time it was claimed by the Paulites and Code Pink that all of us were having our freedom taken away and that American citizens were going to be locked up without a trial.
It never happened in the past when PAUL and the left claimed these things and I call BS this time as well.
That is not entirely true - the President now has the power to order the assassination of US Citizens outside the US, at his whim, a power he has already exercised. Persons subject to the Constitution have already been detained without council for "suspicion" and removed to Guantanamo.
Just because Paul has some views which are deplorable does not mean that his opinion here is as well - furthermore, he is not the first in line with his criticism of this - we have been discussing this issue for several weeks here ...
So, you claim that no person subject to the Constitution was denied due process based on the Patriot Act or any of the following legislation. Due process meaning that a court was consulted prior to any act of surveilance / detention and/or that a detained person was not denied habeas corpus.
And no, I'm NOT refering to combatants in Iraq / Afghanistan / elsewhere ...
FDR had American citizens put to death without a civilian trial. Nothing new. But if you are on a battle field acting as an illegal enemy combatant trying to assist in the killing of American troops then too f—ing bad if you get a bullet in the head without a trial.
You are telling me a lot about yourself by the fact that it bothers you that such a traitor isn’t treated like a mere criminal.
War is war and is not some game of cops and robbers. If you want to go play on the battle field as an American citizen then too bad if get to find out what the game is all about.
On every issue of National Security the views of Ron Paul are deplorable, I doubt this issue is any different.
Extremists are extremists, are extremists. bttt
"....One cannot simply blindly apply first principles to every situation, for this ends in a dogmatic and false absolutism.
"This is, for example, what creeps people out about Ron Paul.
"He says plenty of things -- derived from first principles embodied in the Constitution -- that make perfect sense. However, he always goes too far, in that half of what he says results from a blind application of first principles, irrespective of empirical reality.
"The same moral confusion afflicts leftists who wouldn't waterboard a known terrorist with information about an imminent attack, owing to an unthinking allegiance to the principle of "non-torture" -- which any normal person shares, up to a point, the point of suicidal insanity. ..."
No. I claim that no person legally was detained in such a manner. Just because a law was used to detain someone doesn’t mean it was used properly. I do claim that the Patriot Act itself is not the danger to our liberty that the likes of Ron Paul and others claim it was.
Any law can be abused and there are many leftists who try to create abuses of power in regards to our National Security and to our troops intentionally just so they can undermine a good law.
I refuse to carry on conversations with people who refuse to read what I write and then decide to attack me for things I did NOT write.
So, good day.
The bills sponsors state that it applies to American citizens. Here is a link for you for more research.
The bottom line if the executive branch deems you a terrorist you go straight to jail. No phone call. No laywer. No rights what so ever. You could disappear never to be seen again.
I don’t know what your thoughts are on this, but it scares the hell out of me. Just from my past posts on this website.
Next up is the Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA. This will shut down the alternative media, including Free Republic.
Say what you want about Ron Paul, but he is consistently been against these types of bills.
Dr Ron Paul makes sense 87.5% of the time ... but the 12.5% of the time he does not make sense is why he should not be considered as a Presidential Candidate ... for any party ... and he’s not a Republican any more than Bernie Sanders is a Democrat, even though Senator Sanders votes with the Democrats the majority of the time.
Reince Priebus should separate all GOP support from Ron Paul so that no more Republican finances support Dr Paul ... and so that he can no longer hang onto GOP coat tails to promote himself and his brand of libertarianism. His name should NOT be on the GOP Candidate list.
“Those who would trade their liberty for security deserve neither.” Jefferson
I read the bill and you are nothing but a propagandist for the fascist tyrants.
You said:
“the President now has the power to order the assassination of US Citizens outside the US, at his whim, a power he has already exercised.”
The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces so of course he can order the killing of any illegal enemy combatant on the battle field legally as per our Constitution. Yet you claim that the power is “at his whim” which is pure BS. Any President can be charged by Congress for abusing his power and for crimes.
When people add in comments like you did of “at his whim” you are distorting the issue and lying about the powers involved. This argument also only goes to protect traitors and illegal enemy combatants (terrorists) and not to protect liberty.
Can you post each and every lie, or just some of them.
Lindsey Graham and John McCain, two RINO’s we would be better off without.
Isnt it funny how often you see “Ron Paul is a nut, but on THIS issue...” Pretty soon, people will agree with him 100%, and still say that.
What are you talking about?
In this thread I haven’t even claimed that I am right on this issue, I have simply given my opinion based upon the track record of those who object to it.
So why should I have to itemize every lie of Ron Paul? Just so you can have some sort of pleasure from seeing me have to defend myself?
I have given my opinion about the those who support ‘terrorist rights’ like Ron Paul and his ilk and it is all I have for now.
Yes he is for it, you can tell by the fascist propaganda he spewed out in his post.
1. The CinC does NOT have a Constitutional Power to order the assassination of anyone.
2. “At his whim” means at his discretion alone and, based on your post where you claim he has this power, you essentially affirm that fact.
3. “Illegal Combatant” is a term which the Bush Administration should never have coined. Enemy Personal are combatants and are protected, as are civilians. Anyone else who raises arms against an Army is covered directly in the Geneva Conventions - i.e. a field comander may determine thier fate in a tribunal.
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.