U.S. Is No Longer Land Of The Free According To Turley

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley offers ten reasons why the United States is no longer the land of the free in a column that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post and reposted on his blog. You can read the full column here, but this is a short summary of what he writes about:

• The President's declaration of a right to assassinate American citizens he deems terrorists or those who aid terrorists.
• Congressional authorization granting the President authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens accused of terrorism or aiding terrorists without due process of law as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
• The President's arbitrary right to decide whether a person is entitled to a trial in a U.S. civil court or military tribunal.
• The President's expanded authority to conduct warrantless searches in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
• The use of "secret evidence" protection to shield from disclosure evidence used to detain and try persons accused of crimes that disclosure of which the government claims would harm national security.
• The refusal to investigate or prosecute war crimes committed by the through of unlawful interrogation methods.
• The use of secret foreign intelligence courts.
• Immunity from prosecution granted to companies which assist the U.S. government in warrantless searches of citizens.
• The use of GPS systems to monitor the movement of citizens without any court order or review.
• Extraordinary renditions that allows the President to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to other countries in order that tortures methods may be carried out against suspects.

The following passages from Turley's column best sums up why you should be concerned about the loss of these fundamental rights:

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. Powel 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.

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.

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.

Congress Sends Bill To President Stripping Citizens Of Due Process Rights (a/k/a The Martial Law Act)

It's been called the Martial Law Act because of the dangerous language included in it that authorizes the federal government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens it deems to pose a threat to national security based on the thinnest of allegations linking a person to the support of terrorists. Both of Indiana's senators, Richard Lugar and Dan Coats, voted in support of the Defense Re-Authorization Act that strips citizens of their constitutional right to due process. The lopsided 93-7 vote wasn't as bad in the House of Representatives where 283 members violated their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution compared to the 136 who kept their oath by voting against it. Surprisingly, most of Indiana's congressional delegation joined the minority in opposing the bill, including:

• Rep. Dan Burton (R)
• Rep. Larry Buschon (R)
• Rep. Andre Carson (D)
• Rep. Mike Pence (R)
• Rep. Todd Rokita (R)
• Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R)

Hats off to these congressmen for keeping their oath. Just three Indiana congressmen joined the majority in violating their oath of office. They are:

• Rep. Joe Donnelly (D)
• Rep. Pete Visclosky (D)
• Rep. Todd Young (R)

Camp Atterbury in Young's congressional district is one of the likely locations where U.S. citizens will be unlawfully detained. Lots of money being spent down there for something.

President Barack Obama, naturally, plans to do what his New World Order masters have ordered him to do and sign it into law. Yep, he really is a sleeper agent for the CIA. A few liberals like Jonathan Turley have finally gotten Obama's number, while others like Sheila Kennedy who are devoting their time to figuring out a way to dismantle American's Second Amendment rights continue to drink the Kool Aid. Turley writes of Obama's betrayal:

There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights . . .

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial. At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle. The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights. While the Framers would have likely expected citizens in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters. Instead, we are captivated by whether a $10,000 bet by Romney was real or pretend in the last debate.

As Turley notes, there is only one presidential candidate today who stands on the side of true civil libertarians and that man is Ron Paul.

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

And Rush Limbaugh thinks Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who can't beat Obama. Huh!

Where Were The Civil Libertarians When Congress Gutted The Constitution, Again?

"No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due of process of law." At least that's what the U.S. Constitution provides. Yet, the U.S. Senate passed by a vote of 93-7 legislation that does just that. Under a provision of the Defense Reauthorization Act, the government can deem any U.S. citizen a threat to national security and order the person detained indefinitely at a Gitmo-styled facility for enemy combatants. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) and his father, GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, are among the small minority in the United State Congress who understand that what the Congress is doing is subverting a basic right conferred on all Americans by our constitution.

Fellow blogger/attorney Leo Donofrio has a chilling view of what this means to the American people:

The new Martial Law Bill which affirms the detention of American citizens indefinitely without due process of law passed the Senate 93-7.

Habeas corpus just got knifed in full daylight, left to bleed in the cracks of the Capitol commingling with the blood of patriots who died for this country. The blood drawn like butter by Senate vampires drooling and gurgling with delight, appetites satiated… for now. Their ecstasy whisps through depraved neurons as their spit foams upon the very name of freedom . . .

First note the title, “Affirmation of Authority”. This bill is simply elucidating the powers already held by the President. It “affirms” his authority, but such an affirmation is not necessary if he already has the authority. So whether this bill passes or not, the President still has the authority to carry out the things mentioned in this bill. Therefore, this is simply a dog and pony show, and if Obama does veto it, he still has the power to do anything the bill states . . .

Words matter. The definition of “belligerent” includes: “a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude.”

Therefore, if you are a person who has publicly expressed a spirited dis-belief in the official 911 story, it can be argued that you have exhibited a hostile attitude about the official story. If you don’t believe al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible for the towers falling, and that the government has covered up truth – ie, that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition – the government might assert that you have supported al-Qaeda.

If you doubt al-Qaeda’s ability to have pulled this atrocity off, then the government might argue that you are defending al-Qaeda. Your statement/blog may qualify as a belligerent act even though you have never expressed any direct support of al-Qaeda. Under this construction, you could truly hate al-Qaeda, but if the belligerent act appears to support al-Qaeda in any way, that may be enough to trigger the statute.

But this statue isn’t limited to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. It also covers anyone who substantially supported “associated forces” engaged in “hostilities” against the US or its coalition partners . . .

This is a dog and pony show. Nothing happens without these federal freaks knowing about it first. Martial law is coming and they are setting up the script now.

I do pray that reams of tin foil are my inheritance for posting this alarming missive. Please, oh Lord, let me wear the blessed tin foil hat of shame and take this burden from our nation. Let me live in ridiculous splendor accepting with glee the blogosphere’s tomatoes launched at my head forevermore.

Unfortunately, my read on this hand of poker… is that my prayer is not going to be answered.

So where are all the civil libertarians in this country when you truly need them?