Liberty Under Siege

From Campaign For Liberty:

Liberty Under Siege




Posted by Open Parachute on 06/17/10 11:52 AM

Last updated 06/20/10 11:58 AM



















"First they came for the Communist, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialist, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionist, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoller's poem is a timeless and poignant warning about the creeping tyranny and the need to stand up for the rights and liberties of everyone, including those with whom you disagree and those who are in the minority.







American's core liberties have been successfully eroded and abridged since the 9/11 attacks. The initial assault was on the rights of non-citizens with foreign sounding names. Now a draconian measure introduced by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Scott Brown (R-MA), Congressman Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Charlie Dent (R-PA), called the Terrorist Expatriation Act, would strip American citizens labeled "terrorist" of their citizenship.







"Individuals who actively support terrorist organizations dedicated to harming our nation do not deserve to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship," said Congressman Altmire.







Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you delve a little deeper.







The Terrorist Expatriation Act coupled with a bill introduced in March 2010 by Senators John McCain (R-AZ), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), called the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act would reinforce the idea that the Federal Government is the greatest power in the nation, that the individual is subject to its authority. This view is in direct contradiction to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution. Our rights are inherently ours and government was created to protect them: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their Just powers from the Consent of the Governed."







The Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation, and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value, and not provided a Miranda warning.







Who falls into this category? According to the Miac Report, "Anyone with a dissenting opinion against the government poses a threat." These "dissenters" include Tea Party Members, Libertarians, Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr supporters, supporters who display bumper stickers and other paraphernalia (flying the Gadsen, "Don't Tread on Me Flag," is a perfect example), tax protesters, returning war veterans, militia members, and "such other matters as the President considers appropriate." Do you fall into one or more of these categories? Are you associated with, or have family members who are associated with one or more of these groups? You could be guilty by association! How do you feel about Obama being handed dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim?







These two bills are a direct assault on the Constitution, and most notably on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th Amendments (Bill Of Rights). They pose a direct blow on the ideas established in the Magna Carta of 1215 and British Common Law. Due process and the right to a speedy trial, the basis from which American law is derived, is under attack! Are you concerned? These bills, if passed, would become a weapon in the hands of this administration, and those that follow, to silence any opposition.







In Ex Parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court said, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and it covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances." The Supreme Court, in other words said, "that it is precisely in times of emergencies, such as war, that civil liberties must be defended and protected. If not, then governments will be given an incentive to constantly create crisis, or perceptions of crises, as a means of grabbing more and more power. More governmental power always means less freedom for ordinary citizens." Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked (New York:Three Rivers Press, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, 2006), p. 169.







Do these two bills sound characteristic of a government that champions individual freedom and natural rights? Or do these bills champion the myth of collectivism that solidifies power and privilege in the hands of the state?