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?