| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Ten Reasons We Are Less Free |
| 2012-01-15 |
| Apparently for prosecuting terrorists who were - at one time or another - citizens. Assassinating American 'citizens' is the first of ten, and the last is -- Extraordinary renditions The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and non-citizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers -- including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens. Right. Only Rethuglicans abuse power. These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy. Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that "free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." Of course, terrorism will never "surrender" and end this particular "war." Never is a long time. I think it'll wind down, eventually, like the last expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Wait. Liberals are two-faced? Hypocritical? Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: "That is a decision which we leave where it belongs -- in the executive branch." And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat. Uh-huh. An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will. The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powell confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a republic or a monarchy?" His response was a bit chilling: "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it." Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely. Until the ghost of Ronald Reagan sits in the White House with the Dems as the minority party. The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention. Right. Don't make O work around the definitions; make the power broad and sweeping! Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free. As long as we are the home of the brave, we'll be the land of the free. Or the most free, anyway. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #3 Pragmatically, e.g. Australia's history as a Penal Colony, iff their home countries don't want 'em back the US will either have to allow pro-Violence Jihadis + other, etc. to stay in CONUS, in LT to be put on track to become fully legal Citizens-Residents; or else find another country to take them in where they will likely establish Jihadi communities + networks there. Again, Muslims historically wage Wars of Decades + Generations - a conflict isn't gonna end just the current generation of Leaders is degraded or destroyed. 'Tis a CATCH-22??? Lest we fergit, RADICAL MULLAHS = "ISLAM RULES, OR ISLAM IS DESTROYED". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-15 22:10 |
| #2 Mr. Turley represents Sami al-Arian. Nuff said. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2012-01-15 16:11 |
| #1 Apparently Mr. Turley has never heard of Woodrow Wilson. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-01-15 13:52 |