Posted on 01/03/2012 10:23:53 AM PST by emax
I thought this would be interesting to share with all fans and supporters of Rubio here and all those who think only leftist Democrats and leftists disguised as Republicans supported this bill. Thought it would be interesting to see a Conservative perspective of support for the bill, admist all the claims that this was something done by Obama to start to create a Communist regime. This has been posted in replies to other posts before but I thought it was deserving of its own thread, so here it is.
So, you demand that every enemy combatant MUST be given a fair trial and sentenced to capital punishment or criminal imprisonment for a definite period of time, before they can be killed or held in detention without a trial and sentencing. Great idea, because the Federal budget will no longer require and Artillery Corps for the Army. After all, if you cannot kill a jihadist without first having a fair trial and sentencing, the artillery will be useless. The Infantry Corps will have to give up their machine guns, because there is no telling which of the jihadists could be tagging along in the attack wave as an unarmed U.S. and California citizen. The Air force will find its fighter-bombers of no further use, since they cannot tell the difference from far above between a U.S. citizen jihadist and a foreign jihadist. When the jihadists put a U.S. soldier, Marine, or airman on show trial in retaliation, we'll at least be warmly satisfied that no one can call us a Stalinist, right?
I only demand what the constitution requires under the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizens. Blurring the lines between warfare and not warfare is the danger here and who is entitled to make the call without review.
I have fought for this country, two tours Viet Nam, and am no peacenick. I have also developed a healthy concern for granting powers to men of questionable purpose not overtly granted by the constitution. Maybe you trust and believe everything the government tells you but my life experiences have taught me differently. I can assure you few in Washington give a shit about your liberty but you should....
Later
We can agree that the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus creates opportunities for an abuse of power which can result in unacceptable consequences. However, we should also be able to recognize that the inability to suspend the writ of habeus corpus when and where the circumstances require it for the sake of the Public Safety and the defense of the Constitution can also result in unacceptable consequences. The dilemma and the problem then is how can these diametrically opposed risks and dangers be avoided by well meaning citizens?
As someone with military experience, you should know there really are compelling circumstances where the threat of a breach of OPSEC can have dire consequences for the lives of tens of thousands or millions of people. Imagine for example how many more lives could have been unnecessarily lost as a consequence of a British citizen detained for attempting to communicate the Allied deception plan for FUSAG to German intelligence through an attorney at a public trial for treason? Imagine how many lives can be lost in the event an arrested Al Qaeda member and U.S. citizen were able to communicate through a defense attorney the fact of how and who had compromised the signal intelligence of the Al Qaeda organization?
Your arguments are well reasoned however the issue to me is a matter of misuse of power not the use of power. We have a president that acts without any consultation with congress, we have the most corrupt department of justice in history. The blurring of executive authority between a declared war and an undeclared war is a land full of danger. Hypothetically with a well balanced government that respects the constitution and the sovereign citizenry I have no problem fighting the enemy, no holds barred. However, I fear that is a hypothetical that no longer exist in this once great land.
The founding fathers put restraints on government because they knew government was composed of men. How is it now we are so much smarter than they. Has man changed.... I think not
I am reminded of the great quote... “he who would sacrifice a little of his liberty for a little security deserves neither.....”
Nonetheless, how does it help the situation the least little bit for the citizens and non-citizens alike to be badly misinformed about and incited to wrongfully deny the true history of the Constitution's authorization to suspend the writ of habeus corpus?
How does it help to wrongly condition the public into thinking a prisoner of war must be put on trial in a criminal court where doing so is a blatant and inhumane violation of the laws of armed conflict and a war crime?
How does inciting the disallowal of indefinite detention and mandatory trial in a criminal court for a prisoner of war, whether or not a lawful combatant, do anything helpful to protect our own prisoners of war in the custody of the enemy, especially when doing so is itself a war crime with regard to lwaful combatants?
How does inciting the disallowal of indefinite detention and the beginning of mandatory trial in a criminal court for a U.S. Citizen help to protect that U.S. Citizen against false prosecution, unfair, and unjust trial conducted by a rogue government better than immunity from trial pending the end of domestic hostilities?
We all know the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus is a potentially dangerous power for any government to possess. However, it must not be forgotten nor disregarded that there are also great dangers and risks involved when you mandate that a government must either allow the freedom of an enemy dedicated to causing death and destruction or deny the immunity from criminal trial of a loyal U.S. Citizen attempting to protect and defend their self and/or the Constitution against the usurpation and abuse of power by a rogue Federal Government.
Eliminating the power and the obligation for the indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen could backfire and give a usurper the power to say a detained U.S. Citizen has no immunity from trial in a criminal court because of the U.S. Citizen's status as a domestic belligerent in a rebellion.
Given these kinds of realities and risks, the question remains as to how well meaning citizens propose to effect the protection and defense of their own civil liberties and protections without inadvertently destroying them at the same time with the consequences of their efforts?
The Founding Fathers were intimately acquainted with these dilemmas, with so many of them and members of their families having been imprisoned and dying in the rebellion of the Revolutionary War. They incorporated their hard won lessons into the Constitution, authorizing a suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and indefinite detention as understood by the then prevailing laws of armed conflict. The current generation faces the problem of determining whether or not they can do any better or any worse. If any changes are to be made, they must be made with the full knowledge and understanding what the potential consequences of their actions may be.
The latest discussions in the conservative blogs do little to inspire any confidence in the commenters’ willingness to make themselves informed and understanding of the consequences of the actions they propose or demand, much less their smearing of the reputations of conservatives who are at least trying to make well informed and understood decisions.
As you know our rights are , however unalienable, are only as good as the people that protect them. I have no issue with this matter under a declared war and regarding a combatant in arms. It is the “who declares against whom” in a non declared war, or unilaterally defined domestic hostilities where all that is required for indefinite detainment and no due process is a “suspicion”. We have seen things get twisted before by an overaggressive government. How close to the scenario of “Minority Report” do we go in the name of security?
This argument sometimes feels a little like the argument on gay marriage in the context of “ how does it hurt you marriage” tough to argue past that. Your clearly entitled to your “government above the citizen in the name of security” views ( my perception) and neither of us are going to convince the other. I do respect the civil nature of the discourse and your well reasoned attempt to convince. Usually long before this I get a load of name calling hurled in my direction.. Your a good thoughtful person we just think differently on this.
For me the default is “ when in doubt don’t give more power to the government”....
Later on when there is time, I would call to your attention the erroneous usage of the term “undeclared wars” with respect to armed conflicts which were in fact declared wars and armed conflicts which were an imposed state of war for which the Constitution required no action on the part of Congress to declare war. I would argue that you are the victim of the false indoctrination of the general public with regard to the subject of what does and does not constitute a war and a requirement for a declaration of war versus simply declaring war. The reality of the laws of war are very different from the false concepts and false definitions being implanted into a person's mind, beliefs, and conclusions.
Later on when there is time, I would call to your attention the erroneous usage of the term “undeclared wars” with respect to armed conflicts which were in fact declared wars and armed conflicts which were an imposed state of war for which the Constitution required no action on the part of Congress to declare war. I would argue that you are the victim of the false indoctrination of the general public with regard to the subject of what does and does not constitute a war and a requirement for a declaration of war versus simply declaring war. The reality of the laws of war are very different from the false concepts and false definitions being implanted into a person's mind, beliefs, and conclusions.
Please, no need to insult me because I disagree with you. It unworthy of you to declare me a victim and not understanding of your superior pontifications.
regards
out .....
good grief, put your bone down man.. I am done with this conversation. Should you reply to get the last word do not expect a responce.
with respect, take care
Taking the example of the so-called Quasi-War with France, the general public is typically informed that this was an undeclared war fought without the authorization of the U.S. Constitution. Such statements are false, because France declared war upon the United States and the United States Congress declared war upon France. The reason for the misinformation is due to the fact of these sources wrongly assuming a formal declaration of war was required to declare war.
International law has never required a formal declaration of war to be made in order to declare war. War can be declared in a number of ways, and a formal declaration of war is only one of those available methods.
If you will take a look at the Constitution, you will see the Congress has the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the only method which could be used had to be a formal declaration of war. Consequently, any of the other methods available to declare war remained available to the Congress, including ultimatums, authorizations to use military force, authorizations to blockade or embargo,or other unlimited or limited acts of war.
The power to declare war and the power to make war when a belligerent imposes a state of war is still relevant in today's world. The status of belligerents is closely tied to the state of war and the state of diplomatic relations. Popular news and education sources shamelessly and incorrigibly misinform and miseducate the public on these subjects.
I wish there was more time now to detail these issues. It is regrettable that you appear to want to close your eyes, ears, and mind to these historical facts; and then criticize Marco Rubio, Col. West, and other conservatives on the basis of such misinformation.
We aren’t even arguing the same subject. I am not at issue with the constitution nor the power granted to congress or the executive with regards to war and the declaration or not thereof.
I am at issue with the executive when it masquerades its actions as being blessed by the constitution through some self established “intent” argument not founded in fact or law. We currently have a administration that has little regard for the constitution or the laws passed by congress. Recent behaviors bear that out.
I am a simple man who believes the most important thing we have is, other than the favor of God, our sovereignty as individuals and the limitations placed on men in government by the constitution. All matters, for me, are viewed from those premises.
As for the NDAA the administration and some in congress wanted language the established mere suspicion of a broad range of unfavored activities as sufficient to intern indefinitely without due process ( I did read the proposed language). Although the final language was more benign than the proposed the fact that the administration and many in congress either argued for it or were declared as willing to accept it reveals to me a inherent intent not consistent with my view of the world. the language is gone but the intent, I fear is not....
P.S. I am sure we would have a stimulating conversation over coffee. Posting dispatches to free republic although intertaining is not always the best way to impart understanding.
As Dennis Prager says “I prefer clarity over agreement”. Clarity is hard to come by within the limitations of this media.
regards
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.