Trading Liberty For Safety
"Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
The response was predictable. After sending our
alert last Thursday regarding the passing of the Military Commissions
Act, we received a flood of email. Many were supportive, but others
took exception:
"Don't you care that terrorists want
to kill us?"
"Olbermann's obviously a left-wing nut who wants conservatives
out of power."
"The act isn't that bad..."
It is bemusing to watch certain conservatives --
conservatives who once screamed that Bill Clinton was going to
suspend the Constitution, establish martial law, and put Americans
in concentration camps -- blithely justify the actions of a president
who appears to be doing just that. A president who once reportedly
stated that the Constitution is "just a [expletive] piece
of paper."
"Stroke of the pen, law of the
land. Kinda cool." (1)
Remember that phrase? When Clinton advisor Paul
Bengala spoke those prophetic words, conservatives were justifiably
outraged. How DARE the president unilaterally overturn the Constitution
of the United States! He has no right! What hubris! Yet Bush's
repeated infringements are quietly excused as "necessary,"
and those who oppose him are demonized as "liberal nuts"
or "terrorist-lovers." Just as those who opposed Clinton's
treachery were demonized as part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
"Bush won't misuse it. It'll only be
used on terrorists," states one writer.
Okay, let's pretend that's true (historical evidence
to the contrary). In the early 1930's, in response to a recent
crime wave, the right-of-center Weimar Republic passed several
"vital, necessary" laws registering firearms and prohibiting
Gypsies from owning them. Five years later, a left-of-center leader
was in power and used those same laws, amending them as needed,
to consolidate his power. The result was World War II and the
murder of millions of what the US might today refer to as "unlawful
enemy combatants."
Writes Joe Wolverton II:
"Those who fail to see the dire gravity
of this legislation and who prefer to take refuge in the naive
partisan belief that President Bush and the Republican Congress
would never abuse this tremendous power, should contemplate
well the fact that both the White House and Congress may very
possibly change to Democrat control in the near future. Then
will the supporters of the Bush administration's grasp for power
have a leg to stand on to even protest, let alone stop, dictatorial
exercise of the same power under a Democrat regime run by Clinton,
Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schumer, and the like?"
(2)
Like most of this administration's recent legislation
and "signing statements," the MCA is a knee-jerk reaction,
a product of short-term thinking that will inevitably be used
for evil, just as the "vital, necessary" laws of the
Weimar Republic were.
"Olbermann's a liberal shill,"
writes another apologist.
Again, we'll assume that's an accurate statement.
But what difference does it make? Many notable conservatives (who
truly understand what "conservative" means) have stated
the same.
*In addressing the issue before a Senate committee,
Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate General
(JAG) for the Marine Corps, said: "I'm not aware of any
situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence
that is recognized by civilized people, where an individual
can be tried without, and convicted without seeing the evidence
against him. And I don't think the United States needs to become
first in that scenario." (3)
* Referring to the new law's provision that a
detainee is not allowed to see the evidence presented against
him, Rear Admiral Bruce E. MacDonald, the Navy's top lawyer,
stated: "I can't imagine any military judge believing that
an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government's
evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused
was not able to see any of it." (4)
* The Air Force's chief lawyer, Major General
Jack Rives declared that the commissions established by the
act do "not comport with my ideas of due process."
(5) (One wonders why -- if this is the _Military_
Commissions Act -- the military is plainly none too happy with
it?)
* Jim Bovard, author of the anti-Clinton book
_Feeling Your Pain_ , wrote a scathing commentary
on the MCA, as well as the mainstream yawn it engendered (6).
* So did the ultra-conservative magazine _The
New American_, which states, "The Military
Commissions Act of 2006 allows the executive branch to circumvent
the Constitution, endangering the due process of law for all
Americans, not just terrorists." (7).
* Arlen Specter (R) stated of the MCA, "I'm
not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional
. . . that suspends a right that goes back to 1215..."
(8)
* Even the platform of the Constitution Party
-- hardly a hotbed of liberal ideology -- states "We deplore
and vigorously oppose legislation and executive action, that
deprive the people of their rights secured under the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments under the guise of "combating terrorism"
or "protecting national security." (9)
People often make the mistake of assuming that JPFO
is a conservative organization because of our support of the Second
Amendment. Not so; we're very much beyond that. JPFO is _absolutely_
committed to the Bill of Rights. We have no sacred cows, no party
line to follow. Our only criteria is "Does this infringe
on the Bill of Rights?" If it does, we react negatively,
regardless of who is doing it. Keith Olbermann is not our source
-- the law is our source. And this law clearly, unequivocably
violates the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"You want to protect terrorists!"
Wrong. We want to protect people accused of terrorism
(that whole unfashionable "innocent until proven guilty"
thing). People have been unjustly accused by our government before,
after all (check out the John Glover case on our website (10)).
If the accused are indeed guilty, then punish them appropriately.
But everyone deserves the basic right to defend himself in court...not
to be locked away in a gulag under some specious accusation.
"The removal of Habeas Corpus only
applies to aliens."
True, as far as it goes. Now what happens if you're
picked up as an "alien"? You can't prove otherwise because
without the right of Habeas Corpus, you cannot demand to go to
court to make your case.
Or you could simply be declared a UEC, or "unlawful
enemy combatant". Section 948(a) of the MCA defines "unlawful
enemy combatant" as:
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities
or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not
a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of
the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person
who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful
enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another
competent tribunal established under the authority of the president
or the secretary of defense. (11)
Note that this definition (much broader than previously-used
definitions) contains NO exception for American citizens. And
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the UEC
label as meaning you are no longer under the protection of the
Bill of Rights (12). All the government would have to do at your
habeas corpus hearing is provide some evidence that you have engaged
in some act of terrorism (maybe you donated to an organization
"suspected of terrorist ties"...).
Jacob Hornberger -- another conservative -- points
out:
"How does an American who is labeled
an enemy combatant ultimately get tried? Answer: he doesn’t.
Under the Military Commissions Act, trial by military tribunal
is limited to foreigners. So, even though Americans still have
the use of habeas corpus (so far) to test whether their detention
is lawful, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the “unlawful
enemy combatant” designation for people accused of terrorism,
Americans will be returned to indefinite military custody as
“unlawful enemy combatants” if the government has
provided some evidence of terrorism at the habeas corpus hearing."
(13)
"At least Bush lets us keep our guns."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure
that people have the ability to overthrow a government that has
become tyrannical. The fact remains that all firearms permitted
in the US must meet the "sporting purpose" definition.
Not all are well-suited for fighting a standing army. Further,
guns do little good when you cheerily applaud the tyrant or make
excuses for him. Guns, after all, were prevalent in Iraq under
Saddam Hussein.
The painful reality is that both parties have been
betraying us for years. They do not respect the Constitution,
nor do they respect our basic rights. Conservatives who excuse
Bush's actions have been duped into remaining loyal to the ideal
of conservatism even as it is twisted into a nearly-unrecognizable
mockery of itself by the Bush administration.
A true conservative would say, "WRONG IS WRONG,
no matter who is doing it. And destroying our freedoms -- for
any reason -- is WRONG. I don't care who's doing it, this is immoral
and illegal. I'm not going to follow the party line if it goes
against everything I believe."
Perhaps the saddest, most telling comment comes
from a writer who states:
"Arab and Iranian Muslims must be exterminated.
Any law that remotely points in that direction is good. That you
and the U.S. Government coddle Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."
Does anyone fail to see the parallel between 1930's
Germany and our present society within this statement? To write
such a hate-filled declaration to a Jewish civil rights organization
-- one fully aware of the dangers of broadly damning an entire
race or religion and advocating their "extermination"
-- is breathtaking in its audacity. That the writer is willing
-- nay, eager -- to give up his own freedoms and liberty
to further such a goal is perhaps saddest of all.
In closing, we offer this challenge: send us a link
to a video or thoughtful article that supports the Military Commissions
Act as legitimate and Constitutional. We'll put it up, and let
our readers decide.
- The Liberty Crew
(1) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jennings012500.asp
(2) http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(3) ibid
(4) ibid
(5) ibid
(6) http://tinyurl.com/yltvsz
(7) http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4269.shtml
(8) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/07/AR2006100700917.html
(9) http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Terrorism%20and%20Personal%20Liberty
(10) http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/hw-glover.pdf
(11) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
(12) http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger105.html
(13) ibid
