When people say, “There is peace and safety,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape. But you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But, since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we wake or sleep we might live with him (1 Thessalonians 5:3-10).
As I mentioned the other day, I think the issue facing our country is not primarily left vs. right or GOP vs. Dem. It is, rather, an elite on both sides of the aisle that is increasingly stronger and more tyrannical vs. a populace that is increasingly weaker and more vulnerable to the depredations of the strong. It is an issue rooted, of course, in our culture of death. But it is something that has now begun to metastasize well past the killing and maltreatment of the weak, sick and old and is beginning to target all of us.
The concern about abortion, since the beginning, has been not merely that the killing of unborn children itself is a grave evil (bad as that is), but that the rationale for doing this evil must and will surely become the rationale for oppressing and killing the weak at every level of society. As Mother Teresa said with characteristic simplicity, “If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other?” Ideas have consequences. Once you declare that a human being’s right to live comes, not from the hand of God, but from the generosity of the state, you make all members of homo sapiens vulnerable to having their rights stripped from them by anybody with sufficient power to do it.
Almost 40 years ago, we chose to do this to the weakest and most vulnerable members of society and have gone on, as a culture, making that choice every day.
But our civilization has not stayed in place. It has built on this fundamental denial of human rights rooted in the fact that we are creatures made in the image and likeness of God. Little by little, but with increasing momentum, we have chosen, always for the sake of “peace and safety” (i.e., convenience) to snip off from the human family more and more of those who are weakest or otherwise beyond the pale of consideration as ineligible for human rights. Next came the elderly and ill, with euthanasia legislation. It’s sold, again, with the lie that it will bring “peace” (for the unwanted dying) and “safety” (from loss of too much money by those responsible for the care of the expensive weak person) but the real goal is convenience for bean counters who can’t be bothered to pay for people who “use up too many resources.” Power, once again, gets concentrated in the hands of the powerful and the undesirable are, on the word of the powerful alone, declared to be unworthy of life and pushed into death.
The culture that has supported this (particularly my own Generation Narcissus) has, with spectacular short-sightedness, never dreamed that somebody more powerful than us might consider us nuisances who might need to be gotten rid of. Which is how, with quiet efficiency and almost no notice from the media, the U.S. Senate last week was able to pass a bill which (if, God forbid, it becomes law) would place all American citizens in pretty much the position that the unborn, ill and elderly currently occupy: persons with basic human rights if the Powerful say we are entitled to them, and non-persons with absolutely no rights if the Powerful decide to imprison and (as we shall see in a moment) perhaps even kill us without charge or right to counsel.
The bill (SB 1867) was, it shall be noted, a bipartisan effort, authored in secret by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin. It is sold, of course, as “peace and safety” yet again. The idea is that the War on Terror (for reasons that are entirely unclear ten years down the road from 9/11) is suddenly so desperate that the President shall be given unilateral authority to strip any American citizen of his most fundamental civil rights, place him under military arrest on the basis of the royal fiat of the President alone, throw him in prison without charge and, if the Executive so wills, leave him there for the rest of his natural life. In plain English, what this means for every American citizen is that the Senate just passed a bill that would repeal, not just the Bill of Rights, not just the Constitution, but Anglo-American law back to Magna Carta. If the President says so, any or every American citizen can be summarily declared an enemy of the state—without charge, evidence, trial, judge, jury or verdict—and sentenced to life in prison.
Would a victim of such tyranny have the right of appeal? Senator Lindsey Graham explains it all for you:
“If you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re going to be held in military custody and you’re going to be questioned about what you know,” he said, “and you’re not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system, because we’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war.”
Well, that sounds reasonable! Who wants to give terrorists human rights, the filthy scum? They should be grateful we don’t summarily kill them. And what difference does citizenship make? An American traitor deserves death.
Such reactions are precisely what Hermann Goering was talking about when he said, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Indeed, Obama already claims the unilateral right to summarily kill American citizens without arrest, evidence, trial, judge, jury or verdict and he also says the Supreme Court has no authority to stop him. If the President informs the press an American citizen is an enemy of the state, the press dutifully informs us and then the President has, according to the President, the authority to have that citizen killed. We then nod and trust the account the White House gives us, since when has an immensely powerful and unaccountable government official ever erred or lied about gross injustice to an innocent man? The state is, as we all know, infallible when it kills. So due process is a pointless obstacle to its swift and unerring workings. The President can be trusted with near infinite unilateral power of life and death over every citizen. Checks and balances just slow things down when we need action now! This is, naturally, also sold as “peace and safety.”
In short, under Obama, citizens accused of terrorism (not “found guilty”, just accused) are the latest category of people who no longer enjoy rights as human beings in the image and likeness of God. If the state wills, the Executive tells us he can kill any person he declares to be a terrorist.
So what has the Senate—the check on an overweening Executive—done to rein in a President who regards himself as empowered to kill you if he feels like it? The Senate wants to give the man claiming this unilateral power of life and death over every American the unilateral power to lock up—forever—any and all Americans on his word alone as well.
What could possibly go wrong?
Simply this: the reason institutions like the state exist and why a thousand years of Anglo-American law are there is to protect the citizens, not just from Bad Guys like terrorists, but just as much from the depredations of those with absolute and unquestioned power. So, while this bill seems to many a neatly efficient way of dealing with the problem of terrorists, it also has the regrettable side effect of giving a small and absolutely unaccountable elite absolute and unaccountable power over every single American citizen while stripping you and me absolutely naked and defenseless before an omipotent Leviathan. Should the Executive decide he wants to say that you and I are terrorists and lock us up forever without hope of appeal, this bill says, “Go for it!” and takes away habeas corpus solely on the basis of his almighty and unquestionable fiat.
“Yeah, so what?” say some supporters of the bill. “Senator Graham tells it like it is. We’re at war and desperate times call for desperate measures. If you don’t want to feel threatened by this tough measure then don’t be a terrorist traitor!” Yes, well, there is that. But there is also the little fact that what this bill does is a) place the matter of defining who is a “terrorist traitor” in the hands of an omnipotent executive who could, if he felt like it, declare you a terrorist traitor even when you aren’t one. Indeed, you don’t even need to be a terrorist traitor. You just need to be somebody the state thinks is suspicious based on its own bizarre criteria. Do you own guns? Do you own weatherproof ammunition? Are you missing any fingers? Do you have more than seven days worth of food stocked up?
Oh, and by the way, are you prolife (and therefore possibly on a terrorist watch list)? That is sufficient rationale, under this bill, to arrest you without charge and lock you up forever, should the Executive so will.
Indeed, the fig leaf of “suspected” association with “terror” has almost infinite malleability in the hands of an executive skilled at manipulating a pliant media. Because “support” for terrorism is so broad that a mildly imaginative Executive can, with a little lawyerly cleverness, expand the definition of “support” for terrorism to cover almost any person he wishes eliminated. So, not too far down the road you may want to be asking yourself: Have you indulged in “hate speech” by questioning gay “marriage”? Are you critical of the President (or any subsequent President) and saying publicly that he is a despot for warrantless wiretaps or arrests and assassinations of American citizens? Do you oppose some policy of his and think it dangerous or un-American? Do you protest election results, or desire his impeachment or removal from office? Indeed, this law virtually invites the Executive to swiftly abandon giving any rationale at all for your summary imprisonment. The only thing holding the President back from arbitrarily arresting political enemies is the mental stability or general integrity of whoever happens to occupy the White House. You will have no right to counsel if our “national security interests”—defined solely by the executive who is arresting you—say otherwise. You can be “disappeared” and that state can call you a terrorist as it happens. And that state can also, according to Obama, have you killed if it pleases the President.
But that’s not all. To get the bigger picture of the plans our elites on both sides of the aisle have for the populace it is important to note two other things. Namely, two amendments that were (for the moment at least) defeated. One was an amendment by Senator Kelly Ayotte that would have created a secret list of interrogation techniques that breach the boundaries laid out in the Army Field Manual. In short, it would have legalized the use of torture against American citizens if the Executive felt like using it. Second was an amendment (defeated in a bold move by Senator Rand Paul) that would have allowed the state to go on detaining you as long as the Executive willed even if you were found not guilty in civil court.
Now some have noted that President Obama has said he will veto this horrible assault on our most basic protection of law. True. But note his terrifying rationale for doing so:
White House spokesman Jay Carney accused the Senate of engaging in “political micromanagement” by including provisions that he said would restrict US flexibility in the fight against Al-Qaeda.
“Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authority to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation will prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto,” Carney said.
In other words, Obama objects to this bill, not because it recklessly gives the President virtually limitless power to subvert habeas corpus and summarily strip any and every American citizen of his most basic legal protections before Leviathan, but because it does not give him absolute and unquestioned power to subvert habeas corpus and summarily strip any and every American citizen of his most basic legal protections before Leviathan. It is not, in a word, tyrannical enough for Obama. Our elites, on both sides of the aisle, are laboring to reduce every American citizen to the subjects of a tyranny and the only quarrels between them are the precise degree to which they shall do so. And it is happening right now, not in some dystopian science fiction movie future.
But that could never happen in America! Actually, it can—if we do nothing. The myth that being American somehow protects us from the effects of original sin is just that: a myth. Do nothing and we stand as good a chance as the rest of homo sapiens of destroying our happiness in some rash move that sells our liberty for the illusion of peace and safety. It’s happened before and it can happen again. We have it in our power to become a living laboratory demonstration of Ben Franklin’s stark warning: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” And we are very close to doing it.
It will be argued by some that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. True enough. But this is not the Civil War and the country is in nothing like the desperate plight it was then. Nor is it a slam dunk that Lincoln was right to do so even then. But he at least had in view the re-establishment of habeas corpus once the war ended. This war as currently defined has no conceivable end since it is a war against a tactic and foe so amorphous that no terms of surrender or criterion of victory have ever been defined. Therefore the Senate is talking about doing away with our most fundamental defenses as citizens again an omnipotent state—forever. It effectively means that the American populace is to be—forever—at the mercy of our ruling elites (and especially an executive) who will decide, as they please, who gets to have basic human rights and who doesn’t. It’s Roe v. Wade metastasizing like a cancer into the life of every American and leaving us all as vulnerable as a helpless baby in the hands of a state that could easily regard us with as much hostility and fear as 1.4 million babies receive each year. For as multiple totalitarian societies can attest, the unaccountable powerful find it easier and easier to dispose of difficult, annoying, and troublesome people via summary jail and execution, just as they find it easy to declare a wider and wider array of citizens as “threats to national security.”
The bill is not law (yet), and we can hope and pray the House rejects it or the President keeps his promise and vetoes it (though I am skeptical he would if it crosses his desk since it basically says about due process what he himself says: Who needs it?). But whether it passes or not, the fact that this utter betrayal of our legal and political traditions could ever have gotten this far says with great clarity, I think, that the real and growing conflict in this country is not between Democrat and Republican but between the strong and the weak. Both Dems and Republicans backed this monstrosity. The President only opposes it because it’s not quite monstrous enough for him. And, as with euthanasia and abortion, the people laboring to strip us of our most basic rights will not just lie down or go away if this first assault fails. They’ll be back, just as they tried again and again before finally succeeding with abortion and euthanasia. The question is, will we let them or will we resist?
If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep.
It need not be so. We can, if we choose, shake off slumber and rouse ourselves to reassert what is best in our country and those who would rob us of it promising “peace and safety.” Indeed, as the outright hostility this President has shown the Catholic Church demonstrates, Catholics have particular reason to be concerned about an omnipotent Leviathan coming to regard them as enemies of the state. But that’s up to us and our willingness to ask God’s help to search and try our ways and turn again to the Lord. Otherwise, we will have only ourselves to blame if we trade our freedom, bought with the blood of generations, for a false sense of security and a very real set of chains.
Comments
Post a Comment
Spot on! It doesn’t get any clearer than that. I just wish people could really see what’s happening around them. In hind sight we criticize the lack of sight of others for not seeing their own despot rise to power and commit horrible atrocities. Why can we not see our own? Hope this reaches people without becoming fodder for those who are so wrapped in a “comfort bubble” and want nothing to break it, that they try to dismiss the seriousness of it with stupid comments/accusations of “paranoia” and “tin foil hats”. Wish that would have been the next “bubble” to burst instead of the housing market.
I was gobsmacked when I heard about this proposed law. And think how its constitutionality could never by challenged in the Supreme Court because no one would even know of the existence of a person who had the standing to challenge it!
Ben Franklin didn’t ‘say’ that it is from the bible.
Mary: Read the whole piece.
Mary, you didn’t read the whole article. Here’s Mark’s quote:
“
We have it in our power to become a living laboratory demonstration of Ben Franklin’s stark warning: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” And we are very close to doing it.”
Seriously…dude. I missed the practical advice part of this article. Assuming we’ve already had a good freak out, what do you propose we do?
Craig:
Be serious. Ever heard of calling your congressman? Creating popular pressure to vote against a measure? Letters to the editor? Flooding the phone lines of elected representatives and threatening to vote against them if they do something displeasing to their constituents? Do you have anything to contribute to this conversation beside snark? Because if not, will just go ahead and delete your future flippancies.
“It’s sold, again, with the lie that it will bring “peace” (for the unwanted dying) and “safety” (from loss of too much money by those responsible for the care of the expensive weak person) but the real goal is convenience for bean counters who can’t be bothered to pay for people who “use up too many resources”.”
Not just the elites, but when regular folks appropriate that lie themselves when really just don’t want to deal with their incapacitated Grandma. I’ve met Christians who were pining for euthanasia. Mother Teresa had is right, a start, is taking the person right next to you.
Multiply Craig’s textbook demonstration of what Mark warns against: being asleep at the wheel. If t
If a country is not driven by its constituents, it will be driven by their delegate.
Craig what you see out the front window of the car of your life is not a TV show.
If you need to ask Mark “what do you propose we do” you need to wake up fast.
Craig’s teachers of Civics were clearly failures. Multiply Craig’s response by hundreds of millions and you see the national nightmare Mark warns against.
Oh, it’s worse than that. Watch this short clip as a small sample ... the government wants to release a virus to remove the thought of God. Yes, that sounds crazy ... but hear it for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=nADFJlAggnY
then what… will it one day be dispersed thru the flu shot…. or MMR vaccines?
History all over again but with better technology.
Thanks Craig. I suppose you’re another one of those ‘both major parties are evil’ type of guys. I guess I’m just one of the ignorant unwashed masses. I’ll try my best to wake up and see the “national nightmare Mark warns against” so I can join you in fretting, comforted only by the knowledge that my vision of reality is superior to the “hundreds of millions” that are actually happy and thankful to be living in the United States of America.
Yes, Craig Roberts. People who love the tradition of ordered liberty that the United States has given the world are unhappy and unthankful to be living in the United States and only defend that tradition because they hate America. Thanks for clarifying that you do intend to remain unserious. I will delete all your subsequent comments.
It is a pretty amazing law for its brazenness. I don’t know why its constitutionality is not at issue. Certainly any American would have standing to bring a suit to enjoin the implementation of this law, since any American could be a target of it.
The courts are still [God help us] the most effective bastion protecting our rights. They always have been. The courts have shown great deference to executive power only during certain types of wars—The Civil War, WWII. The courts have not shown especially great deference to the executive in other kinds of wars—for example Korea, or the war on terror. So I think there is good reason to believe that this law would meet its demise in court. I find it difficult to believe that a court could set aside all our rights in the name of national defense under present circumstances. But I could be wrong.
In any event, I quite agree this is no time for complacency. I just don’t think it’s time to panic….yet.
The larger issue of being ‘at the end of democracy’ or in a ‘tired democracy’, if the analysis is correct, counsels that even if the law were overturned, the impulse that gave it birth would become stronger and resistance to it weaker over time. If the thesis is correct, I don’t see the point in fighting the inevitable. Civilizations are born, live for awhile, transform, and eventually disintegrate or are conquered. There don’t seem to be exceptions to that pattern that I am aware of. So perhaps the best response to the pattern of our day is to prepare ourselves to be that kind of Catholic that lives in the time God has seen fit to place us in. I think the best model for what we are becoming is the old Roman Empire. You know, lions and gladiators and bread and circuses and….martyrdom, until civilization may be born anew.
It’s constitutionality is at issue. That’s why people are protesting it. I agree that if it get signed into law by some dark miracle, it will be up to the courts to strike it down, but before that dark day comes, it’s up to us to raise hell with our elected representatives to kill it. That doesn’t mean “panic”. It means *act*. Contrary to Craig Roberts ridiculous snark, that doesn’t mean “not voting”. It means contacting your representatives and bugging them, threatening them with loss of votes, finding candidates who will not support such rubbish, or even becoming a candidate oneself if you feel so inclined. We have options as citizens that are not limited to a single Presidential vote next November. Martyrdom is a last resort.
From “What do you propose we do” to “Join you in fretting.” Wow. This nihilism has already accepted the end of the American experiment as a foregone conclusion. Note to Craig: When Mark suggested to you calling your congressman he didn’t ask you or anyone to “join you in fretting.” That’s why he suggested to you that you call your congressman. He didn’t “propose” anything except taking the oars within reach of your hands. If every American would do that about this bill it would not be “fretting.” It would be acted upon by every Congressman who doesn’t want to explain such inaction in the next election. If you Craig, absolve yourself from all responsibility for this bill, it could come to be law. and you, Craig, and all the other millions of Craigs who won’t do much as call their congressman about it will either want that law or not want it. Mark is saying “choose” and Craig responds “why bother?”
And Craig thank you for the textbook illustration of what not to do: the Gen-N response.
Agree….very dangerous bill that needs to be defeated.
Mark: re constitutionality, I meant, why isn’t its constitutionality at issue in the legislative deliberations RIGHT NOW. You’d think in a room full of lawyers someone other than Rand Paul would be able to stand up and say: according to my legal experts, this law is unconstitutional. I guess the reason we haven’t heard that is because they don’t know if it is or not, and they are hoping for the ‘best’, that the law will not be struck down. Because ultimately in almost all cases how we define what is constitutional and what is not is by what 5 people in black robes say is constitutional or not, and the legislators know that.
Mark and Kevin: sorry about the martyrdom thing, it was really mostly just a thought experiment. On the other hand, the path we are taking of centralization and beaurocratization is not one that we have consciously charted for ourselves. It seems to have a life of its own, and this reality must I think be reckoned with in our approach to politics in the present. Who is Ron Paul but Brutus writ cranky? Brutus did not succeed. Really, the seeds of what is now blossoming were planted in 1787, when we illegally trashed the articles of confederation because the practical importance of a stronger centralized government became in the eyes of the federalist founders a question of common sense. I believe those founders were right, but, how can one avoid the present consequences of that founding when the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and the vigil keepers are ‘tired’?
This is a horrible bill. I have been dreading its coming. I cannot believe we live in the United States and have laid flat on the ground to be trampled on by people we voted into office.
One thing for sure, we are complicit in this disastrous bill. It is the failure to look out for the genuine common good of country and countrymen that has guaranteed that due process be eviscerated.
With such attitudes like, “Bomb Iraq! Bomb now!” and “Good riddance to Anwar Al Awlaki. He deserved to die”, small reason why we are here today.
I feel like we failed a very important test with the assassination of Al Awlaki. We should have asked, “What about the due process owed to him?”. But yet, very few people made the case that the U.S government was wrong in carrying out the assassination of Awlaki and his 16 year old son. They were both citizens.
St. Paul being a threat to the Roman Authorities said to them, I am owed a trial and a fair hearing. Of course he was innocent, but to the eyes of the Romans, he was guilty—but they gave him a trial anyway because of the laws in place for her citizens.
Mark: re constitutionality, I meant, why isn’t its constitutionality at issue in the legislative deliberations RIGHT NOW. You’d think in a room full of lawyers someone other than Rand Paul would be able to stand up and say: according to my legal experts, this law is unconstitutional.
Given that the law was concocted in secret, I think common sense tells us that the reason its constitutionality was not at issue among the 93 senators who voted for it is that they don’t care about constitutionality and are making a major grab for power over us. The question is: will we let this happen or resist?
Mark: A bit of an aside, re: the Chesterton quote. I happen to be re-reading The Everlasting Man (third time), and right now I’m on the very chapter from which this quote comes. Almost Providential! It was the first Chesterton book for me, and it’s still the very best book I’ve ever read.
How ironic that it originated with McCain, the former Navy Lt. who spent a long vacation at the Hanoi Hilton!
Mark, I think you’re overreacting. Not because the situation isn’t serious enough, but because any sudden moves will cause this viper to strike. And you’re clearly within striking distance.
What section and sub-section of this bill are we talking about?
Mark: good point about the secretiveness. As for the motive of those who voted for it, I think war hysteria and the desire to be popular with constituents are the primary psychological reasons they voted for it. Remember, the Senate doesn’t get any power in this bill, it is all a proposed gift to the executive. So a power grab as a motive doesn’t make sense.
The theory of our founding which the founders took from Montesquieu was that if we separate power into branches, that the separate branches would compete with each other for power, and that therefore no single branch would be able to amass too much power and become dictatorial. But in this case we have the Senate simply gifting power to the executive.
This is not the first time Congress has done this kind of thing. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, yet since the 1950’s Congress has been giving away more and more of this power to the executive. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Congress is afraid to be held responsible for exercising this power and would rather let the executive be the focus of national criticism during war. [Of course, nukes is what changed Congress’ mind about being responsible for war. The Constitution does not envision police actions and wars on terror; it envisions all out war. But all out war in the nuclear age is of course ridiculous. We need some other way to handle conflicts and that involves…police actions and wars on terror.]
At first glance at least, this development seems a very strange contradiction of Montesquieu’s presumption that people are always going to hoard power for themselves and attempt to take it from others. It was upon this presumption that our freedoms were to be secured, according to the federalist papers.
So basically we are looking at a gap in Montesquieu’s premise, which in most other circumstances is a very valid premise. What to do then, when humans that have power, shirk from, rather than consolidate, their power?
We could of course, as you say, just vote them out. Why though would new representatives be expected to be any different in this respect?
I think we should analyze the pressures motivating Congress to surrender power. My observation is that this shirking occurs when the responsibility to act is greatest from a national perspective: namely when the country is at war. I think it must be admitted that the Congress and courts are the bodies least able to carry on a war of the type we presently wage. Yet, the founders gave the power to declare war to Congress.
Congress also has the purse, according to the Constitution. Yet, now that budgets are also an issue of national emergency, I think the time is coming when budgetary power is also going to be given away. That is exactly what a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would do: it would give the power ultimately to the Court, under most plans. To my knowledge Montesquieu did not foresee this kind of thing happening, nor did the Founders. The presumption was that people that had power would hang on to it tooth and nail; there was no concern that people would give away power which they had given to them by law.
I guess it is simple: when the country needs immediate solutions to a problem, it needs a body that is able to act immediately in order to solve it. When a body of government cannot do that because of how it is structured, then the individuals that compose that body have a motive to give that power away so that their inability is not exposed, and therefore they are not blamed, and therefore not re-elected.
So, paradoxically, one way to make sure that Congress didn’t give away its power would be to give members lifetime tenure! Of course, to do that would cause other problems, but it would most likely solve the problem of giving away power voluntarily. Although it would be less democratic, it would be more protective of our freedom. Perhaps, since we have bi-cameral systems, if we allowed one body to be that way, sort of like a House of Lords, that would help bring balance.
Another option would be to change from a bi-cameral system to a unicameral, since a more efficient branch would be less likely to abdicate power to do things when it has the ability to do them itself.
Just some ideas.
If a person is fighting the United States on a battlefield or in a war context, he is de facto no longer a privilidged citizen. He is an enemy combatent. Frankly your politics are with the paranoid. No real citizen should be worried about this.
Manny, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone’s not out to get you. There are wide swaths of ordinary Americans just minding their own business, more concerned with raising their kids and paying the bills, who would fit neatly under the umbrella of terrorist-types, as dictated by this wacko administration. Remember the remark about “clinging to their guns and religion?” You’re fooling yourself to think this is not a real threat to those who oppose the madness. To their minds, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.
Manny—I agree with you. The proposed law applies specifically to anyone who “planned, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” and/or anyone who belongs to or supports al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
I think Mark wrote this article after his weekly “9/11 was an inside job” briefing.
Short Manny: Herman Goering is a much better model for American law than the outmoded American tradition that molded it.
Since Mark has invoked the Founding Fathers, then it should be noted that we’ve been headed toward this for over a century, ever since the Great Emancipator (who never freed anyone), Honest Abe himself, told us the “peace and safety” of the Union required the bloody suppression of states that had joined that union under the impression they had the sovereignty to leave at the will of the individual state. The first check and balance that was destroyed was the power of the states to rein in the federal government. It was only a matter of time after that until the federal government cannibalized itself and we were left with the all-powerful will of the Executive. Were the Founding Fathers around to see this, they’d be in a state of apoplexy.
Manny:
So then, you are comfortable with the President of the United States having sole power to say who is a “real American” and possessing the authority to jail forever or kill any American citizen on his say-so alone? Due process is a waste of time and habeas corpus is too 18th Century for you? Sounds like your logic is, “If the President jails you forever or orders your death, that proves you had it coming.”
Wow. That’s the kind of thinking dictators love. It’s even biblical: “So Pilate went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over.” (John 18:29-30)
I’m generally a supporter of Rand Paul, but this response by McCarthy at National Review is serious and worth reading in full:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284698/rand-paul-libertarian-extremist-andrew-c-mccarthy
Thanks, Mark, for your well reasoned warning. Beyond writing one’s Congressman, I’d recommend looking to the Occupy movement. The “99%” have been warning us since September of the political and economic deprecations of the 1%; or, as you put it, “Power, once again, gets concentrated in the hands of the powerful….”
Ah, short David too. The problem here isn’t the nature of the accusation. It’s the unfettered power for those making it. Ideas do have consequences, & the proposition behind this one is - no less, not paranoid or exaggerated, just fact - the repudiation of the entire Western legal tradition in favor of the despotic Eastern one defeated at Marathon, Salamis & Plataea.
David T:
Empty 9/11 truther ridicule is a non-response. (For the record, I think 9/11 trutherism is baseless nonsense). This is not baseless. It’s there in print. The key point here is that sole and absolute power to define what “anyone who belongs to or supports al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” means is reserved to his Imperial Majesty the President alone. That strips every single American of his 4th Amendment rights. The President can, if he wills, declare any and every American to be a “supporter” of terror if it pleases him. And you are deprived of all rights if he does. It’s incredible folly.
John:
I frankly don’t care, vis a vis this issue, if Rand Paul is a libertarian extremist. He’s not proposing a law that says the President can lock me up forever on his despotic whim. The Senate is. And Rand Paul is one of the few people who stood up to this despotic act. McCarthy, frankly, has been pushing for despotism for years so it doesn’t surprise me he would be herding us toward the side of the boat that is already nearly gunwale under. I will fret about Paul’s excesses at some future date when the Congress is not poised to repeal the Western legal tradition and replace it with an oriental despotism.
I’ve done a brief search for the word, detention, in SB 1867, and cannot find the relevant section in this massive piece of legislation (the Defense Authorization bill). Precisely which section/subsection are we concerned with here?
Dear Dr. Zmirak:
Respectfully disagree that Mr. McCarthy’s response was serious, or worth reading as anything but an Advent penance. Leaving aside its interminable length, standard neo-con invective sans argument, & every other wearisome want of quality that has characterized NR since its Frum days, allow me to address the salient matter McCarthy chose to elude - of who gets to decide, without challenge, when an American can be declared an enemy of the State.
The closest McCarthy’s tenth-rate propaganda comes is to say, why, there’s this obscure law that gave our Emperor such power just over ten years now, so it’s a tradition now, & only a hyper anti-Empire guy like Rand Paul would ever doubt it.
Very much in the (Thomas) Cromwellian tradition this contemptible piece.
Some very good points. The Judge is way to Libertarian for me, so do not usually listen to him. As for the American killed over seas, fighting as a terrorist, this was explained very well to us, by saying he had forfeited his citizenship by becoming a terrorist, was in a war zone, so that is that. The same happened during WWII, if someone was an American, of German descent, that choose to fight on the side of the “motherland. I pray the house will take care of all the edgy material in this bill. I also am thankful McCain did not become our president. It would be better to have Sarah, than Obama, that is for sure.
Mark—I do not think you are a 9/11 truther, but I do think your article was somewhat over the top. If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that the conventional rules of law enforcement are woefully inadequate to deal with terrorists. The law in question would go one step further in treating them as enemy combatants and not as civil lawbreakers. I don’t see the law as a threat to honest citizens. But maybe you’re the true Ben Franklin here and I’m just his Tory-loving son, William.
I do not think you are a 9/11 truther
Then why resort to such a cheap rhetorical trick?
If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that the conventional rules of law enforcement are woefully inadequate to deal with terrorists.
How, precisely, did it teach us that? I think what it taught us was that those responsible for the nation’s security should obey the procedures that were in place and not panic and pass draconian measures to compensate for their failure to do due diligence.
The law in question would go one step further in treating them as enemy combatants and not as civil lawbreakers. I don’t see the law as a threat to honest citizens.
The law in question goes beyond the bounds of all sanity and threatens all honest citizens by reducing them to the subjects of an absolute despot whose sole word and will is sufficient to lock them up and throw away the key. If you don’t see that as a threat to honest citizens, you have not conception, not only of the American system of due process, checks and balances, and rule of law, but of the western legal tradition going back centuries. Even ancient Israel was more advanced than this, having cities of sanctuary and some limited right of appeal to royal clemency. In this system, any person designated to be disappeared has no rights at all. Everything depends on the sanity and integrity of His Royal Highness the President.
There is no precise language limiting exactly who can be detained. Yes, there are a couple paragraphs which state that aiding and abetting Al Quaeda and the Taliban are crimes that can get you locked up if you are suspected of them but then the description of who detention applies to goes on to say you only need be suspected of working with any group that wants to hurt the US or its Coalition Partners in order to be detained indefinitely, which is a VERY broad definition.
Also, some have said that this:
“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to citizens of the United
States.”
wording protects citizens when all it does is leave it to the President’s discretion whether or not to indefinitely detain citizens whereas the bill requires that non citizens suspected of terrorism be indefinitely detained.
The bill also authorizes holding those detained pretty much anywhere in the world so you can get shipped off to God only knows where and rot in prison.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
The text of this bill starts at page 359.
Where in SB 1867 can this legislation be found? I am only able to find budget appropriations for the department of defense.
pg 359 of the document linked to above.
lemme get this straight, we are to allow unlimited, sole discretionary power to the president to decide who is, and isnt an enemy of the state, and act on it without due process… that about right? What would make this different from the American Japanese internment camps or the Death Camps during ww2? and do you really want to put your fate and your families fate in the hands of the same people that aided and abetted the current financial meltdown? Freedom comes with a price, like allowing all people equal protection under the law. War or no war….
AWESOME. Best thing you have ever written, and it’s here just when we need it most. These little liberalities we oppose keep cropping up fresh with every new generation (because Satan is immortal) and they eventually will wear down our society. This is called “reform” and “renewal”, and once we “move forward” they resist every call to “go back to the dark ages”. This is starting to sound a little like you, Mark! Maybe your “middle road” has led us to this dark corner, by giving in, little by little, because you were afraid of appearing “extreme”. You support some reforms, and then when you try and draw a line in the sand it’s too late. However, the Church will always be with us, and in the coming tribulations we will rediscover Her wisdom and our own Faith.
A great post! Unfortunately, about 10 years too late. We sold the farm when, after 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed, with massive support by both Republicans and Democrats. This not to say that the current bill should not be opposed. It should be opposed and the Patriot Act should be repealed.
Actually, Andrew McCarthy’s arguments do not seem to be purely “neo-con invective” etc. Actually it is as well reasoned and free off emotionalism. Here is another:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285317/real-rules-detention-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1
Well worth the read and certainly calls into question the conclusion of this post.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”
“Lighthouses are more helpful then churches.”
Franklyn, B. Franklyn’s Autobiography. New York: Rinehart and Co., Inc., 1959, 292.
Everyone,
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to make a 54 day novena?
I was planning on doing one myself, but I just thought that maybe Mark and all these other bloggers in New Advent could make some sort of movement where Catholics make the novena at a set time and pray, if not together physically, then spiritually (like the St. Therese of Lisieux novena) for the atonement of the sins of U.S. and for all political leaders, that their laws reflect the Divine Will, or something.
Well, anyways, just throwing that out.
Here’s the bill in html as it passed the Senate:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112sUTOab:e548990:
Carlos - I’d much rather complain than pray. And if I can work in a few elegant disparaging allusions, so much the better.
We will pray that the more conservative House will reject this Bill. It must be noted though that Homeland Security has already indicated that they regard Pro-Life folks and various other conservative factions as terrorist threats. Ahumm!!
Dear James:
Since - while entirely ignoring the heart of SB 1867 save to claim our potentates already have the freedom to intern any American they don’t like by proclaiming him or her to be a terrorist - McCarthy’s fulminations against Senator Rand Paul & Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano as “libertarian extremists…who, under the Orwellian guise of ‘constitutionalism,’ seek to vest our wartime enemies with the rights and privileges of American citizens,” and who further are guilty of “nonsense on stilts” that has led the Tea Party to “lend an open ear to…the likes of Paul and Napolitano — and convince themselves that these characters are scoring points” when “terrorist plots,” according to McCarthy, “succeed because libertarian extremists [like Paul!] frustrate government’s ability to perform” and on and on - in your mind constitutes “well-reasoned argument” that is “free off[sic] emotionalism” then perhaps you will forgive us if we pass on reading the other McCarthy piece you recommend at least until Lent.
Matt B:
Hmm-m… quite presumptuous this evening… aren’t we?
If you noticed, Carlos clearly addressed his comment/question to “Everyone”.
So… what made you assume that you could be counted as part of that general category?
When you *finally* grow-up… you will be given instructions on how to apply for membership. Until then… PRAY.
I’ve read the applicable sections of the bill and my understanding is that the bill actually protects U.S. citizens and alien residents from the requirement that the military hold combatants in custody pending the disposition of the law of war.
Sec 1031 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.
The essence of the bill is that if you are an enemy combatant, not a US citizen or resident alien in the U.S., you will be held as a POW until the end of the war, you will not be treated as a criminal with constitutional rights. This is no different than in any other war we have fought in the past and it is quite reasonable.
“But that could never happen in America!”
I’m surprised that an article with so many distortions, so many sins of omission, could get published in the NCRegister.
But then, I’m a liberal.
Thank you for this. What comes to my mind is the scene from Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man For All Seasons”:
More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down (and you’re just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
It seems to me that Mark Shea has created a straw-man argument. I would agree with Mark if the bill did what he claims that it does: give the President power to designate citizens as enemy combatants, but the bill does not do this. Secs. 1301(e) and 1302 (b) (1) and (2) do exactly the opposite from what Mark claims. These sections protect citizens and alien residents from the requirement to be held in military custody and provides that existing law applies to them. Straw-man arguments are a logical fallacy. One is arguing against something that is non-existent thus making one’s argument meaningless. I’m a little surprised that Mark would employ tactics (or errors) that many protestants use in arguing against the teachings of the Catholic Church. They don’t argue against what the Catholic Church teaches, but rather against what they erroneously perceive that the Catholic Church teaches. Mark perceives something in this bill that is not there. His argument has no foundation.
Dear antigon,
Given the tenor of Mark’s post as well most responses, terms like “Orwelian” and “libertarian extremitsts” sound like statements from the Congregation for Institutes of the Religious Life.
But as it seems you actually may have read the link, do you have any thoughts on it in relation to the current subject? Unless so, I will skip your responses until an equally appropriate liturgical season.
Are Americans so ignorant of history as not to recognize Hitler’s law “Heimtuekischgesetz” which gave absolute power to the Gestapo to arrest (Haftschutzbefehl) and “protect” Nazi society from traitors who dared to speak “anything” against the established party or especially Adolf? (i.e. politicaly correct = draconian “Law”)? I fear perhaps it is already too, too late.
This is a very misleading piece written by Mr. Shea. First of all, there was nothing “secret” about the bill. I have known about it some time, it has been published and commented on; I had several questions about it and they were answered quickly and thoroughly. Granted, it is a large bill, the called the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012, and only a small section, Subtitle D, Detainee matters, sections 1031 and 1032 were the subject of Mr. Shea’s commentary.
In reading those sections, the bill first limits applicability to, “(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” Snatching American citizens off the streets doesn’t seem to be the intent. Detaining people who want to kill us is.
In addition, the bill specifically states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
Shea is making much ado about nothing. I am glad the the liberal and conservative sides of our government worked together to consider how to properly address how to handle an American citizen that seeks to cooperate with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other Islamic terrorist groups. There may be a legal question as to the language of this section, but it is of a technical nature, not to the intent.
Shea’s interpretation of this bill is as bad as a Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of the New Testament.
The libertarians are right on this one. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Indeed, John. But that is, sadly, how Mark rolls these days. He is quite unhinged about this sort of thing and very happy to demonize any who disagree with him.
Marvellous exposition, Mark!
Our present circumstance reminds me of some verses from Matthew.
I sense the separation has already begun.
Matthew 25:31-46
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left…
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
Dear Mark,
Please be more charitable. Not toward the bafoons who purport to represent us, but toward my fellow commenters. You need not be deleting, or threatening to delete, people’s comments who you don’t like because they disagree with you, they are not being profane or disrespectful.
-Martin
Mark,
Thank you! The alarm does, in fact, need to be sounded. I agree with Michelle that we have been headed down this road for quite some time, every since the move was made towards greatly diminished state rights. Those who claim that this bill is clearly not ‘intended’ for snatching US citizens off the streets have never met a lawyer! Our founding fathers were right to distrust overly centeralized power. Most of our elected leaders fail to stand up against such measures because they have surrendered their power to those uber-elites who control the purse strings - back to the false left-right paradigm. We are left to ponder why, at this time, when no terrorist attacks have been comitted on US soil (those like the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber were admitted intelligence ops), is this bill so urgent.
did the government help get the underwear bomber on the plane? - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17505
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbZG1guB_g
Bill is not so clear
Right again, Mr. Shea. Please keep posting this information, because someone needs to. And we Catholics who may have been tempted to trust the “political conservatives” really need this corrective.
According rights to US citizens who may have committed a crime is the price we pay for having a free society. To strip a US citizen of these rights on the mere accusation of being involved in terrorism is the death of “innocent until proven guilty.” The quote by Lindsey Graham is chilling. And for you “neo-cons” who say, BUT THEY WON’T DO THAT UNLESS THEY REALLY HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE: If you trust any government that much, I have a swamp—I mean, a bridge—to sell you in Florida…
If anyone wants to read a less emotional and more reasoned and thoughtful article about this proposed law, please see Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online.
It’s funny how people keep offering Andy McCarthy as the Trusted Authority in their Argument from Authority who, trust them, totally shows there’s no problem. Yet they all do this while consistently neglecting to tell us what he said. We are all simply to trust that Trusted Authority Figure McCarthy says it’s all okay and critics of this bill are wrong and silly and extremists. The only person who has actually discussed McCarthy’s bad argument is Antigon who tells us what he said and why it’s a bad argument. For his troubles, he is dismissed with a flippant non sequitur by “James” (hi Steve!) and other writers then press on saying Andy McCarthy, Trusted Authority Figure, says everything is fine.
Meanwhile, facts are stubborn things: this bill wants to give the Executive the power to strip any American he pleases of his rights, declare him a terrorist or supporter of terror, and jail him forever. It is incredible folly.
Poor Craig. Everyone hates him : (
Mark—Have you read Andrew McCarthy? Or are you relying on Antigon, who admits that Mr. McCarthy’s articles are too long and complicated for him? I guess I understand. Sometimes Mr. McCarthy writes long articles and uses big words because he’s actually a real, honest-to-goodness prosecuting attorney and an expert in very complicated constitutional issues. He prosecuted the Blind Sheikh way back in the days before Emperor George II, when terrorists were just common criminals and Osama bin Laden was still a relatively unknown and starry-eyed young Wahabbist. Mr. McCarthy even knows all about your friend, Jose Padilla, and has written about him a number of times over the years. In Padilla’s case, he was captured in 2002 by the FBI and detained as an enemy combatant under the same authority the FBI used to capture and detain the American Hans Haupt in 1942. What’s interesting, as Mr. McCarthy points out, is that regardless of whether McCain-Levin passes, the president will still have the authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants. Mark, I agree with you and John Adams that facts are stubborn things, but sometimes stubborn things don’t know the facts. Instead of relying on Antigon, try reading Mr. McCarthy yourself. You might learn something.
My question is who didn’t see this coming? This will be how they can get rid nof Catholics and any others that don’t bow down to the government gods.
Dear Mr. Shea:
Unless since your last Confession your sins have been especially
egregious, allow me to suggest you avoid Mr. T’s recommendation as far
too severe a penance. Like Mr. T - since at no point did I find, much
less admit, anything remotely complicated about the piece’s facile
propaganda - Mr. McCarthy has little affection for the 8th Commandment; &
while certainly turgid, his prose is possessed of words ‘big’ only to
those perhaps too easily titillated by affectation.
But certainly more interesting than Mr. McCarthy’s claim that even sans
SB 1867 our potentate may deprive any American of standard legal
protection at whim, or rather by calling them enemy combatants, is also
this stubborn fact: that Mr. T, like Mr. McCarthy, evinces no anxiety
about this, if alas not practical (as we shall be learning more & more
with the years), still legal pretense.
This does, however, generously vindicate the point of your piece, as it
does that you’d learn anything from reading McCarthy you don’t already
know.
And dear James:
Alas I’ve already suffered the woe of your skipping my observations, as
previous to your note they reviewed Mr. McCarthy’s hackery in response to
the estimable (if not perfectly this time) Dr. Zmirak.
David: The question is, have the people recommending McCarthy as the Last Word in assuring us everything is fine actually read him? Antigon’s summary of his grotesque argument is quite accurate. The appeals to him here as Trusted Authority Figure are not arguments. They are mere appeals to authority intended to create tribal cohesion. McCarthy makes soothing noises. The Elect may therefore relax. Those who don’t regard the soothing noises as coherent are to be regarded as fools.
Shea recently posted: “Meanwhile, facts are stubborn things: this bill wants to give the Executive the power to strip any American he pleases of his rights, declare him a terrorist or supporter of terror, and jail him forever. It is incredible folly.” This statement is deceitful. There is nothing in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 that give the POTUS any such authority. Your grossly misrepresenting Sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill.
Admirable indignation, John, however much the revered Mr. McCarthy disagrees with you: but tell us, are you equally indignant that our potentate should have the proclaimed authority to incarcerate any American he deems ‘an enemy combatant’ sans legal protection?
Since that really is the question here.
Understandable as it may be that enemies of the Western legal tradition, such as Mr. McCarthy & his groupies, would prefer to change the subject.
Some people just can’t see past the end of the nose on their face. Did anyone foresee over 50 million plus abortions by 2011 in 1973? Did anyone ever anticipate we would need a law to protect babies born alive accidentally from failed later term abortions? Did anyone foresee the horrendous demographic problems in Europe brought about by artificial contraception and abortion? Did anyone ever guess we’d be marrying people with same sex attractions? Did anyone foresee a 50% divorce rate with the inception of no fault divorce laws? I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that we’d better wake up and smell the coffee or you can bet that this country will not exist in its present form for much longer.
New Yorker: Yes, Pope Paul VI, virtually ignored by churchmen across America. Thanks be to God for holy men like Chaput and Dolan, but after 50,000,000 dead little bodies, aren’t we a little late to the dance? That’s why I have to laugh at the outrage over quibbles like SB 1867, whenever they do in fact erupt. If we’d been good little boys from the start, nothing like this would ever have happened. But as it is, we “sowed the wind,” and now we’re “reaping the whirlwind.”
I’m talking of course about our decision to “delay births,” while indulging in bootless sex, ineffectual degree programs leading straight down blind alleys, and countless obsessive hours of “reeling in the years.” Take as your mark Orthodox Jews and Amish people, and you just might endure the wrath. Otherwise, prepare yourselves for the midnight knock at your door.
Carl Levin voluntarily admitted a totalitarian’s faux paux in an interview that was posted on you/tube a year or more ago that when he stated that “it takes a long time to write legislation to control the people.”
The breach between the so-called elites in Washington D.C. is untenable and fast becoming irreparable.
Friend Fuchs:
A quick Google shows that it was John Dingell who said that. Still it is indicative of the mindset among our Ruling Elites.
Just a corrective note my brother. You say “under Obama, citizens accused of terrorism” and the link takes you to a google page for a search of Jose Padilla who was designated as a terrorist NOT by President Obama but rather PRESIDENT BUSH.
Thank you for the correction Mark. I should have been focusing all of my attention this morning on today’s Mass, then afterwards I could have had enough time to do my own research. My apologies, Terry.
Even in case they have never heard about the Tudors, they are busy re-inventing the Star Chamber? Good grief, 500 years of history down the drain ...
Mr. Shea,
You should not play a lawyer on the internet, or on T.V. You obviously don’t understand the differences between civil, criminal, or martial law.
The Laws of War are completely different than the federal criminal statutes. And, they are provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
According to your flawed logic and thinking, if the military had found out where Tokyo Rose, and her fellow traitorous U.S. citizens, were broadcasting from during WWII, they couldn’t have bombed the radio station, correct? The military would have had to arrest them, and Mirandize them, no? This is not how wars are fought in the real world.
I cannot add much to what the other fine opposition commentators have written. Your dismissal of Mr. McCarthy’s excellent piece in NRO is not an argument. You cannot rebut the fact that the president has had these “powers” since he was granted them, by Congress, in the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), 10 years ago.
Your constant use of the term disappeared, by the way, makes me think that you were a bleeding heart lefty, in a previous life. As this is a term invented by the commies, in the 1970’s. Also, presidents don’t serve “forever”, so, it is impossible for anyone to be locked-up forever.
Finally, this is why your appeal to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum failed so badly. If Catholics can argue about when to go to war and capital punishment, which entail actually killing people, then certainly we can argue about the use of torture, which does not not kill people. And, we can most certainly argue about what constitutes torture.
Ergo, this means that torture cannot be intrinsically evil, or “gravely immoral” as you put it, because Catholics cannot argue about whether it is okay to commit intrinsically evil acts, e.g. abortion and euthanasia.
The Church, from the beginning (the Didache,) has taught that abortion is never permissible. She has not taught the same about torture. As the Protestants are fine of reminding us, the Church did not condemn the use of “torture,” by civil authorities, during the Inquisitions (or, in criminal trials, for that matter.)
Although, like waterboarding, what the civil authorities engaged in was hardly “torture,” in most cases. It was usually the equivalent of the “Comfy Chair” from Monty Python’s No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition.
God Bless!
Ergo, this means that torture cannot be intrinsically evil, or “gravely immoral” as you put it, because Catholics cannot argue about whether it is okay to commit intrinsically evil acts, e.g. abortion and euthanasia.
Nick:
I think this has to be one of the silliest pieces of logic I’ve ever seen. It goes like this, “Catholics can’t argue about intrinsic evils. Catholics argue about torture. Therefore, torture is not an intrinsic evil since Catholic argue about it.” When I point out that Catholics also argue about abortion, my money is on you replying, “No *true* Catholic argues about abortion. Therefore, that proves that abortion is intrinsically evil.” Brilliant.
Ahem: Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.
“I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” - Benedict XVI
And may I point out again that torture is not the subject of this thread and ask you to stay on topic? Thanks. I will not ask again.
Too many people don’t understand that islamic extremism and militant atheism are two sides of the same polluted coin. The scylla and charibdis of modern catholic social thinking is to navigate this treacherous straight. It doesn’t justify the shipwreck of one’s immortal soul on one to have the consolation that “hey, I avoided the other.” There’s probably a rooting section in hell: “ISLAMIC EXTREMEISM!!!”... “MILITANT ATHEISM!!!” In the end, you’re in hell.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. If the president orders that a person is to be arrested and held without due process then the president is ordering the kidnapping of a person. Kidnapping is the tactic of a terrorist, so the next thing the president is required to do, by this law, is report to the nearest military base to be placed in the brig until he dies. When will we learn that the ends never, never, never justify the means. The means need to be just unto themselves. Or I could ask a differnt question, when did they start printing the constitution on the toilet paper used in the Senate chambers?
Leo, I wonder if the ends do justify the means. For instance, do really good ends justify really difficult means? This seems to be the motivation behind olympian quests, and everything worthwhile.
And are really disreputable means justified by the disreputable ends they serve? I think a case could be made. After all, abomination leads to abomination, and slipshod sloppy means lead to regrettable and reprehensible ends.
Maybe the ends do justify the means - in a strange circular way.
“In reading those sections, the bill first limits applicability to, ‘(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.’ Snatching American citizens off the streets doesn’t seem to be the intent. Detaining people who want to kill us is.”
***
Here we see a rather extensive exercise in missing the point. The point is not who is the focus of this bill; rather, the point is that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Without Constitutional amendment, the bill essentially says, “We can except terrorists (of a certain stripe) from the protections of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment; and we will accept the Executive Branch’s say-so as to who is a member of these organizations.” Just as whether you accept a million dollars for sex or five dollars doesn’t change whether or not you’re a prostitute, the limitation to the Taliban and al-Qaida doesn’t change the fact that the provision egregiously violates the Constitution in the name of “security”. Once the precedent is established, anything afterward is simply haggling price.
***
“In addition, the bill specifically states ‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’”
***
Re-read that provision: The government isn’t required to put citizens in military custody. However, the phrasing doesn’t foreclose military custody as an option. In law, the phrasing of a law — what it permits, forbids or requires — is everything; what a law doesn’t explicity prohibit it implicitly permits. This is a legal fact that the mad scientists of the drug culture have exploited time and again to create new “party drugs” that are legal until state legislatures hurriedly re-write the relevant statutes to cover their formulae. No, no, this “protection” doesn’t protect American citizens.
***
The Anglo-American common-law tradition, from Runnymede to Miranda, is based on the reasonable proposition that citizens should not be deprived of life, liberty, property or reputation on nothing more than the government’s say-so. That is what’s very much at stake, and the people who pshaw the concerns by saying, “Oh, it’s only limited to those bad guys over there; real Americans need not be concerned,” are the kind who can’t recognize a slippery slope even after their backs get caked with mud: the definition of a “real American” is precisely what’s been kicked into play. The Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments aren’t limited in their wording to citizens, let alone “real Americans”; the operative subjects are “person” and “people”, which embrace citizen, foreign resident and visitor ... even illegals. These provisions are simply not defensible, and represent a terrible danger to our rights.
Interesting that in the logic of Groupie Nick’s ‘real world,’ Americans need have no concern about SB 1867’s authorization of Pasha powers to our president since, goodness, no problem, the Prez *already* has these powers.
By which logic it could be added that we need not fear the terrorists have won, on the grounds that they already have.
Fortunately the Western tradition of rule by law stands against this very Eastern conception of the ‘real world.’
And if ever tenuous, as the groupies reveal, God grant the former yet triumphs.
This bill is attached to the current defense bill that both houses agreed on today. They are voting on it this Thursday but the language is still there. Eeek.
On a side note, “detention without a sentence or after its expiation” is precisely what “concentration camp” (or then officially, “protective custody”) was defined to mean.
The book “1984” is sitting near me; I’ve been looking at it lately and the fear of “Big Brother” is awake in me especially given the growing threat by the current administration against Catholic beliefs. That said, I’ve a couple concerns. It seems to me that most of these American citizens who turn on our country currently do so from abroad in support of radical Islam. They “self-identify” themselves freely, openly and publicly as enemy combatants normally on the Internet appealing for others to join them in striking at the Great Satan. They make no secret of the fact they are engaged in attempts to harm the US and its coalition allies. Isn’t the administration duty bound to protect the citizens from such threats?
——
Regarding the comment that the current conflict is vague and thus open for the widest possible interpretation and suffers from being a war against a tactic (terrorism), that is marginally wrong. Initially the response to 9/11 was coined as the “Global War on Terror (GWOT)”. And, very quickly, it was understood that such wording wasn’t going to work in the long term precisely for the reasons Mark points out. But, the discomfort was put on the back burner while the task of disrupting and defeating (and yes, killing) the terrorist leaders and their followers went on. Now, however, the administration released a new national strategy this past June for countering terrorism. Link is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/counterterrorism_strategy.pdf The document is about 20 pages long and stresses protecting US values while balancing that requirement with the need to protect the country from those determined to attack again.
——
My take? The pending bill may indeed be a “wedge” which provides the Executive Branch with too much power and cause a dangerous imbalance in the US governing process. Perhaps the wording could be clearer and more specific (most of what Congress writes sounds like mush). But, it is a easily verifiable fact that some Americans have, by their own free will, taken up arms against the US. They are, by basic military definition, part of the enemy leadership. Specifically, this description may help:
Command and control — The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission. Also called C2. (JP 1, pg 61) Link: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
Americans who take up arms against the US are enemy combatants. Those who assume leadership positions participate in commanding and controlling teams under them who are trained and sent on missions to attack the US or its interests. The government of the US has a key duty to protect American citizens and the homeland against any legitimate threat. In an difficult conflict with lots of gray areas, the Executive Branch, which has as the President filling the constitutional role of Commander in Chief, must act. It must be prudent and practical and compliant with the Constitution. And, before anyone turns me into an apologist for the current administration, let me state LOUD AND CLEAR that I pray the current President only gets one term. Yet, whether it is he or someone else in the office, the threats are real, the decisions are difficult, action must often be taken quickly and with less than 100% certainty. That is what I see the bill in question supporting. Could it be a blatant, draconian power play under the cover of “the flag”? Perhaps but I don’t see it that way.
Neither Mark, nor I, nor any other sane American wants another 9/11. Protecting the country while protecting the Constitution is tough and takes wisdom and courage. God bless everyone as we struggle to see the truth of this matter!
In general, the largest threat to this country is the US Congress and this current president. They subvert and betray the Constitution every day with the blessings of the press. It is time for a new Constitutional Convention.
Testament of Gregory Dean Lemke
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all me are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”
As a Christian, I fear for what I see in today’s America. I see that people, although declared equal by our Constitution, are not. Neither are all people similarly endowed with personal right and liberties.
Human beings, for instance, during periods of severe transition and crisis, brought on by sickness and suffering, are often left in a miasma of despair by our social and health care systems. They suffer the burden of their infirmities and, also from the health care system’s infirmity of failing to fully live up to the creed of our country to insure rights and privileges, equitably, to all who are in need, regardless of their circumstance or socio-economic status.
If life is merely a journey, as many purveyors of health care seem to accept, and that physical end processes of dying should be accepted as fate, where suffering is compromised for comfort, then is this not in contention with the Christian view that life is sacred and that all people are equal and that all are worthy of opportunities to prolong and enhance the quality of their existence, by whatever means available. To refer to life as a journey, in the context of how it is used by health care providers, is to say that one lot in life is fixed and the circumstances surrounding that fixity should be accepted. In other words, if you cannot pay for medical services surrounding that fixity it should be accepted. In other words, if you cannot pay for medical services and treatments with may prolong your life and enhance your life; you should accept a natural death referring to (hospice care) or an active death (referring to your right to die) as a solution to your dilemma. Health care providers have grave difficulty in justifying the expenditure of monies to rectify what” they feel” are irremediable health difficulty in justifying the extremities of illness that deplete their fiscal resources (the insurance companies). What’s more the system encourages the development of personnel health care policing programs, or rather Gate keeping, where you are made responsible for your own wellness, releasing physicians from having to sustain life when patient are faced with life threatening illness. The plan would provide health care that would move from sickness to wellness toward stewardship in the practice of care. This is to protect and insure that an appropriate utilization of services in a cost affective matter, making the physician a consultant rather then a primary care provider.
Where, then do the issues of endowment, rights and liberties of individuals come to play. Does the patient really have a right to decide about treatment and what care is best for his or her needs in a medical crisis or is based on their means and income alone? Where, then, do the issues of endowment, rights, liberties of an individuals come to play? Where is “method” which defines the reality of eternal life as a delineated in the ministry of the Jesus Christ? Where do we begin to utilize the time honored principle of purification of the soul through suffering and a means of faith expression in sickness?
It seems that the system has discarded the format which commands us to seek life, eternal, through Jesus Christ with his accompanying truth, borne out if his immense labors of love and by his sensitive preoccupation with the well being of Man? His ministry was a poignant with the rhetoric of how Man is perfected and refined through trial and tribulations
Through misery, pain and disillusion Christ marshaled the Power of God (His Father), to rise above the uncanny difficulty with faith. This faith, therefore, was and is the key to overcoming the pain of suffering and the incredible losses of emotional, psychological and physical body integrity.
By the same token, our streets are full of humans that are predisposed to plight by a society who lacks the courage or concern to make a difference in their lives. Our street inhabitants abound for the most part, not because they cannot redeem themselves, but because our society does not choose to redeem them. Our mentally ill are turned into the street and escape our concern because we have decided that so long as they are not a danger to themselves or others and not liable to endanger lives or property, it generally permissible to allow them to descend to what ever level of existence their lack of means may provide- without dignity. After all, we cannot continue to spend money on people who aren’t able to ever do for them, or for us. “Our pocketbooks suffer enough already”, is the resounding cry.
Unfortunately, it seems, society creates it’s very own scale of acceptance based upon economic priorities and by creating a coming police state solely. These priorities resolve around the individual’s capacity to tend to his own affairs, contributing gainfully, to the community, rather than being a liability to it. This, however, is not in contrast to the principle of the principle of the Protest Ethic, upon with much of or philosophy of life in America is predicated.
The principle declares that humans are necessarily endowed to take care of themselves, and if they were not capable, therefore, they are presumed to be decidedly not resourceful and useless by their own design. People possessed by the spirit of sloth, rather than that of progress. If you are a social deviant or penniless by circumstance or a physical or emotional invalid, it was by your choice you were- it was your destiny. After all am I my brother keeper?
You are only as good as the labor you provide you are a human resource alone in today world. Be careful and attend to your wellness because without your labor you will be lost.
Dying Jesus gave us forgiveness from our sins as well as the gift of eternal life. He so loved the world that He gave. He also gave us a timeless record of His life as a focal point for our own. Something if you, to guide us through the perilous terrain of deception life have created for us.
We read, in the 11th chapter, verse 25 of the Gospel of John, that Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life; he the believes in me, though he were dead, yet he shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die”
I am concerned, however, about the stated premise upon which this kind of concern must be based in order to provide a true and holistic response to sickness and suffering. What motivates the care giver, over and against what ought to motivate givers of care.
If the need for profit in providing care, is an absolute driver in the provision of such care, does this not, then , deter from what ought to be the principle driver for such provision- the fundamental need to show compassion and concern to everyone, fully, regardless of the capacity to reimburse. This, after all, is a modifier of human existence. Do we lose sight of the fact that the desire to heal is not an acquired behavior but a learned one? That Jesus example cannot be taken in part but fully but must illustrate all the possibilities for Man’s development and growth. That life is not an end in itself and that a quality of life is only achievable when care givers are not restricted by fiscal priorities and statistics to provide such quality.
Therefore, Jesus teaches us in the above verse from John that He gives life and that He sustains the substance of Man through the strength of his Word.
It is also stated in chapter 12 of that same gospel, verse * that Jesus told his disciples that’ the poor you will have always” I consider this a rather harrowing indictment of human beings; that we, in effect, will suffer with the problems of poverty in our world always. I am troubled by the declaration that Mankind will not, successfully, eradicate this problem of human poverty. Man will not find solutions to it, though there is a world of options to us if we could muster courage to employ them- but, though our insatiable greed, we are more apt to exacerbate the ill rather than treat them.
This statement is not only an indictment of all mankind. It is, likewise, a wake up call for those of us who partake if the lion’s share of worldly comfort. They too are in danger of losing all of what they have, potentially, because of the very nature of this kind f collective lack of will and the blindness. Furthermore, the likelihood of escaping the kind of tragedy which forces formerly solvent and otherwise productive and resourceful people into the street, because of circumstances beyond their control, because increasing difficult as attitudes, needs and markets change.
As we read farther into the scripture, we see further evidence of the necessities for a dual sense of obligation and the responsibility Jesus declare to be the key in human interaction. In chapter 13, verse 13 of John‘s gospel. Jesus says “you call me Master and Lord; and rightly so; for this I am. If I then your Lord and master and I have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” And then, in verse 15 “For I have given you an example that you do as I have done to you.”
Truly, Christ has given us example that we do as He has done. Because in so doing, we stand to discover that absolute virtue and enriches, Absolutely and that courage, when it is found, is well worth its discovery in love.
Mark,
Will you stop trying to make something which is not a dogma, to be a dogma? While it is true that an ordinary teaching is binding in Catholic consciences, it is NOT TRUE that it is dogma, or infallibly declared.
This is an ordinary teaching. Show me where Christ taught against torture. Do not GENERALIZE your answer (“love your neighbor”), show it in so many words (“Thou shalt not torture” or the equivalent). If I was holding information vital to the just survival of a Country, I would not mind being tortured it I was in the wrong. Visceral reactions do not fly.
“But as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and slaughter then in my presence” (Luke 19:27, RSV Catholic Edition).
I wonder how tortuous it was for those people to be brought before the king and slaughtered? Modern Catholics lack prudence.
“I am speaking of a tragic spiral of death which includes…Psychological torture, forms of unjust coercion, arbitrary imprisonment, unnecessary recourse to the death penalty, deportations, slavery, prostitution, trafficking in women and children” (John Paul II, World Day of Peace Message, 2002).
So those people were tortured in Scripture, since they had psychological violence used upon them for purposes of punishment as they anticipated their deaths.
Sounds to me like we are moving to a totalitarian system where the State is always right and who ever question its measures is a trator.
Mr. Howard:
This thread is not about torture. It is about the state stripping us of the protection of habeas corpus. Nonetheless, let me make clear the ridiculous way are arguing:
Will you stop trying to make something which is not a dogma, to be a dogma? While it is true that an ordinary teaching is binding in Catholic consciences, it is NOT TRUE that it is dogma, or infallibly declared.
This is an ordinary teaching. Show me where Christ taught against abortion. Do not GENERALIZE your answer (“love your neighbor”), show it in so many words (“Thou shalt not abort” or the equivalent). If a baby threatened the just survival of my family, I would not mind aborting it. Visceral reactions do not fly.
“But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”— so shall the priest adjure the woman with this imprecation—“may the LORD make you a curse and malediction* among your people by causing your uterus to fall and your belly to swell! this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your bowels to make your belly swell and your uterus fall!” And the woman shall say, “Amen, amen!” The priest shall put these curses in writing and shall then wash them off into the water of bitterness, and he will have the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water that brings a curse may enter into her to her bitter hurt. But first the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and having elevated the grain offering before the LORD, shall bring it to the altar, 26where he shall take a handful of the grain offering as a token offering and burn it on the altar. Only then shall he have the woman drink the water. Once he has had her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings a curse will enter into her to her bitter hurt, and her belly will swell and her uterus will fall, so that she will become a curse among her people. ” (Number 5:20-27, NAB).
I wonder why the Church forbids abortion when the OT permitted divine miscarriages? Modern Catholics lack prudence.
“Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995).
So those babies were aborted in Scripture, since they had abortifacient rites used upon them for purposes of punishment.
You see? Any idiot can play sola scriptura games with the Bible in order to spit on the developed teaching of the Church. Try being a Catholic and not a fundamentalist.
Again you’re committing the fallacy that the Magna Carta and American Constitution have anything to do with Catholic teaching on government. Catholic kings throughout history have leveraged powers greater than these against their citizenry and some of those kings have become saints. While I certainly don’t trust our current political leadership to use these new powers prudently, as a general principle one cannot condemn ideas of civil rights that didn’t even exist prior to the humanist-driven “enlightenment.”
Actually, our ideas about human rights come from work done by Dominicans, particularly Bartolome de las Casas. And Magna Carta was drafted by a Benedictine.
Good to know that you don’t mind junking civil rights though. That gives a certain clarity to the discussion.
I understand the weariness. Humanism has failed in so many ways. Is there something beyond it that doesn’t involve us morphing into androids, or something to hearken back to, which doesn’t involve breaking humanity in two (the 1% and the 99%)? “Is there (indeed) anything new under the sun?”
SOMEWHAT OFF THE SUBJECT BUT At some time in the not so distant future I sense a shifting of the political platforms where the Democrats will become the Pro-life party thus retaining the original Governor Bob Casey pro-life constituents with the the cross over from the Republicans to the Democrats of Pro-life Republicans & the Pro- abortion Democrats will find their niche with their Pro-abort. Republican counterparts.. As a registered Republican I can feel it in my bones!! One of the signs of the times is observing what group of people attend the annual Pro-life March & Mass in Washington..Humble, prayerful & happy people of average means with many children , not the country club set or upper class elitists who seem to dominate both of our political parties today & WHO WANT TO IMPOSE ON US UNETHICAL & IMMORAL BILLS LIKE THE ONE mentioned above. May the Good Lord & His Blessed Mother continue to bless the work & efforts of all Pro-life Bishops, Clergy & Laity.TRUTH ALWAYS!! ALWAYS TRUTH!! Harry D. Carrozza,MD. Tucson, Az
This concerns Sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Appropriations Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last week. The full text of the law is available from the US Government Printing Office (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540pp/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540pp.pdf). The wording of these sections, as passed, is a lot longer and more cautious than the original Senate language, at least as this blog suggests it was. It SEEMS to provide for protections of the civil rights of US citizens, although not clearly enough to suit me. Anyone interested — and all of us should be — can read the text of Sections 1031 and 1032 and judge for themselves. In any case, our civil liberties have been on a slippery slope for ten years, and whether or not this piece of law steepens that slope, the fact remains that it’s still there. (By the way, this would hardly be the first time that something hair-raising was proposed, even passed, by one house of Congress, without making it into finished law. Some members of Congress seem to be frankly dangerous, and their proposed laws are defeated only by the sheer numbers and inertia of Congress as a whole, if not by simple common sense and decency.)
Peter:
You are right to be gravely concerned.
It appears to me that the House pretty much adopted the original language of the Senate version in both sections ... as well as Title V, Subtitle E, Sec. 551(d), which if signed will legalize not only sodomy but bestiality in the military (apparently no one on the Hill got clued in on that?). Has the Obama Administration staked so much of their policy on LGBT rights that they’ll let everything else slide from inattention?
Interesting how In Ireland the government tried to slip in through the back door during a referendum during the presidential election a law giving a parliamentary body almost unlimited powers to investigate any person they deemed necessary setting aside most basic rights as well. Thankfully it was defeated following a crucial intervention of several of the country’s former attorney generals. Government ministers were livid. Obviously they had failed in another EU ‘directive’ from their masters in Brussels!
Anyone who believes the propaganda that Glenn Greenwald spews, has serious problems with logic and discernability.
I’ll make a deal with you, Mr. Shea. If we ever meet in the gulags, that are sure to result from this almost Stalinist piece of legistlation, you have my permission to say, “I told you so!”, as many times as you would like.
Until they kill us, that is!
Merry Christmas and God Bless!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.