Banner
Just Me Being Silly PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - A Second Battle of Tours
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Thursday, 15 December 2011 11:52

Yesterday the House approved the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Senate is likely to do the same today. There is a possibility that the president will sign it, but he might veto it, and things have come to a pretty pass when I am hoping that Obama will protect us from the Republicans.

What the bill does is grant the government indefinite detention powers over someone accused of terrorist activity, even if that person is an American citizen and the whole thing went down on American soil. Correction -- we know the accused is an American citizen. What we don't know is whether anything actually went down on American soil. All we have is the government's word that it did, and on the strength of that word, somebody can be whisked away, locked up, and nobody needs to prove anything. Ever.

Now let me be reasonable here. I understand the tangled legal issues when an American citizen heads over to Yemen in order to start his DeathtotheGreatSatan.com. I understand the legal issues when an American tries to light the fuse on his sneakers mid-flight while yelling inspirational phrases from the Koran. I get the fact that there is a difference between true enemy combatants and a shoplifter at the mall. So I do believe that the libertarians falsely underestimate the threat that bona fide Islamic terrorism poses to us.

But I do not believe that the libertarians underestimate the threat that our overweening government represents to us. Scale of 1 to 10, how concerned am I that Muslim terrorists are going to successfully do something really bad to me or to my family? Oh, 1 or 2. Same scale, how concerned am I that the federal government is going to do something really bad to me or to my family? More like a 6 or 7, and I am not counting the bad things they are engaged in doing right this minute.

Surely the government will use this power responsibly and wisely, right? Right . . . who would oversee this whole thing? What department would be responsible? Ah . . . the same guys who came up with Fast and Furious? No problem then. I drop my objections. I can see now that I was just being silly.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
elisabeth thunderberry  - they want to slinece hip hop  Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:01 pm
and freedom of expression.....blame the police!
Robert Seward  Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:04 pm
May I recommend "Shattered Lives, shattered Dreams," by Russell Estlack for an excellent example of what this looked like in World War Two. In Hawaii, the islands were under Martial Law for almost the entire war.
JP1  Friday, December 16, 2011 9:32 am
This is the actual Text of the bill, this bill has been dishonestly portrayed all over the place. It had nothing at all to do with whether the President can detain Citizens, proved to be connected to Al-Qaeda or Taliban specifically, they've had that power since 9/11 and the 2001 AUMF....and have done so 4 times.

This is text from actual bill, in it from Day 1:

S.1867 - SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
JP1  Friday, December 16, 2011 9:36 am
Andrew McCarthy wrote several must read pieces on this bill and in particular the "Real Rules of Detention" last week. Further, Congressman McKeon wrote a rebuttal of all the myths on this particular bill other day:

http://www.redstate.com/buckmckeon/2011/12/14/myths-on-the-new-detainee-policy/

The point of the bill, which Obama/Holder hate, is that it makes it much much harder for Obama to take Detainees in Gitmo and move them into Criminal Civilian Courts. he still can, but has to publicly waive the Tribunals and take all the heat.
JP1  Friday, December 16, 2011 9:44 am
Quote:
All we have is the government's word that it did, and on the strength of that word, somebody can be whisked away, locked up, and nobody needs to prove anything. Ever.


Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

Andrew McCarthy on the "Real Rules of Detention"
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285317/real-rules-detention-andrew-c-mccarthy

There is extensive Due Process and has been since 9/11 when the Rules of War were implemented with 2001 AUMF. Which is why only 4 "Citizens" so far have qualified for Enemy Combatant status. There is Extensive Due Process in the investigation with lots of hurdles before going to "Enemy Combatant"
Lukesma  - "requirement"?  Saturday, December 17, 2011 9:43 pm
JP,
The quoted SB1867 text above is oddly vague. It says the "requirement" does not apply to US citizens.

In this day and age, it would be very easy for men to argue that the US gov't is not *required* to arrest US citizens, but is *permitted* to do so.
If they're arguing that Congress's constitutional authority over interstate commerce means being able to force everyone to buy health insurance against our will... then this sort of drunken interpretation should be expected as well. Intention and original meaning, no matter how good, have very little to do with how the laws will be applied.
Lukesma  - "requirement"?  Saturday, December 17, 2011 9:45 pm
JP,
The quoted SB1867 text above is oddly vague. It says the *requirement* does not apply to US citizens.

In this day and age, it would be very easy for men to argue that the US gov't is not *required* to arrest US citizens and detain them without a trial, but that it is still *permitted* to do so.
If they're arguing that Congress's constitutional authority over interstate commerce means being able to force everyone to buy health insurance against our will... then this sort of drunken interpretation should be expected as well. Intention and original meaning, no matter how good, have very little to do with how the laws will be applied.