|
|
||
Threat to liberty-from our own government Date published: 1/19/2012
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. James Madison WE ARE NOW a decade into what the Pentagon is calling the Long War. Terrorism remains a threat. But the threat comes not just from madmen on planes or bombs in cars parked in Times Square; the threat also comes from our very own government. It is the nature of power to consolidate, and what better reason could there be than "security threats"? And so new authority is claimed and individual rights abridged, all in the name of protecting the nation. The latest example occurred on Dec. 31, when President Obama signed into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Most of that law concerned funding the military, but one section, introduced by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., bypasses the FBI and other domestic police agencies, and authorizes the U.S. military to detain any person who commits "a belligerent act" at home or abroad, against the U.S. or its allies, and retain that person "without trial until the end of hostilities." Which, as we've seen, could be a long, long time. Objectors to the provision range from FBI Director Robert Mueller to the ACLU. Even Mr. Obama, while signing it, said he had "serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." But his assurances that he would not enforce some of these provisions are wispy at best. Wasn't it his secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who, in 2009, labeled gun-rights advocates, disgruntled veterans, and those protesting economic policies as threats? Now add another Lieberman flourish to liberty's shackling: He has introduced a bill that would allow the U.S. government to take away a person's citizenship if he or she is deemed "hostile" to this country. The Enemy Expatriation Act requires no conviction in a court of law. So who is "hostile"? Occupiers, including those who threw a smoke bomb at the White House on Tuesday? Ron Paul constitutionalists? Tea Partyers? Second Amendment advocates? And who decides? "Necessity," argued William Pitt in the House of Commons in 1783, "is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." Will Americans buy the "necessity" of the ongoing abridgement of their rights? Or will this nation's historic love of liberty prompt action?
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
||||||||||||
