Thursday, January 5, 2012

The NDAA and You

by Hugh Farnham

The National Defense Authorization Act. A seemingly innocent enough defense funding bill, until Obama and his henchmen had their way with it.

Buried deep within this bill is the authority for the military to declare anyone as a domestic enemy who engages in "hostilities" and can be arrested without trial, a lawyer, or the right of Habeas Corpus. The bill was passed 220 years to the day of the adoption of our Bill of Rights.

This language, found in Sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill, has a sordid and salty history worthy of an Ian Fleming novel.

While this bill was slithering through Congress the Obama Administration was distancing itself from the detention language - but as admitted by Senator Carl Levin it was Obama who demanded the detention wording be included in the bill - with no provision for exemption for citizens. That's you and me, folks. But don't worry, children, Obama has signed a signing statement he won't abuse his authority.

There was evidence of an Internet psychological operation regarding these sections. I recognized this as I am trained in similar arts in the military. When the issue was first brought to light, suddenly several different erroneous wordings of the bill were being posted - within minutes of the expose. Somebody was watching, ready with disinfo at hand. Even my own Senator was deceived about the language and what it meant when I contacted him about it. Now legal scholars are beginning to agree on the destructive nature of these sections on our liberty.

I wish to make it quite clear that as a member of the military, I will not obey any order that is unconsititutional. Indeed, I will work to actively subvert any such order and will encourage the junior officers and senior NCOs who report to me to do the same.


Odd that the bill was supported by a company that makes police night raid equipment...

It gets only better. Now a Congressman from Pennsylvania has introduced a bill to strip people of their citizenship for engaging in "hostilities". Please, define hostilities? Could it eventually be what I'm doing now, Charles Dent, you tyrant?


I encourage you to read Jonathan Turley's excellent expose of this. Meanwhile, be entertained with a cartoon about your (now) lack of human rights by Ruben Bolling (click to embiggen):



57 comments:

beamish said...

In the fine Democrat President tradition of providing air support to al-Qaeda affilliates, can't we sign a peace treaty with the Kosovo Liberation Army or the Libya "rebels" and all go home?

[insert canned laughter here]

Always On Watch said...

but as admitted by Senator Carl Levin it was Obama who demanded the detention wording be included in the bill - with no provision for exemption for citizens. That's you and me, folks. But don't worry, children, Obama has signed a signing statement he won't abuse his authority.

BHO has said that he does not INTEND to use the provision.

But he will. Particularly if he institutes martial law -- overtly or covertly.

Why the hell did Congress pass this bill with this provision included?

Always On Watch said...

Interesting final 2 paragraphs in the Turley article:

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this un-American measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who, they insist, betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens, however, are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

Ducky's here said...

When it comes to making The Ladies Who Lunch feel safe from the scary Muslims, PETA activists and liberals is this really extreme?

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky,

I think one of those you aim your barbs at just gave you your answer.

So your barbed snark (which is stale, You need to update your material) is unmoored from any real conversation going on here.

Jack Camwell said...

I'm a bit troubled that you think only American citizens should be exempt from these tactics.

How many *human beings* were wrongfully detained in Guatnanamo Bay for indefinite periods of time without trial? Oh but that's okay, because things like "rights" only pertain to American citizens.

If you're going to advocate for the natural, civil, and human rights of American citizens, then you need to extend that argument to all human beings, or else you're just being hypocritical.

I think the Founders would be sick to their stomachs to see how the American mindset towards rights has been twisted into thinking that the only people deserving of those rights are American citizens.

Either you believe in natural rights, human rights, or you don't. If you think that rights only pertain to Americans, then I'm sorry to say that you don't believe in natural rights theory.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: False equivalency. Yes, we all have rights, but enemy combatants are treated differently under the law, both international and US.

I can agree with you that the legal construct is shaky, but it is transparent, with lawyers for the accused and any international agency who wants to visiting the prisoners at Gitmo.

You don't arrest and try people on a battlefield; you kill them. That is the difference between law enforcement in the US and prosecuting a war overseas.

Ducky's here said...

No, Silverfiddle, when we act as a nation like a bunch of children pissing our pants this is where it leads.

We have been surrendering due process under the guise of security for decades.

Remember COINTELPRO? Was the right upset about Nixon and Saint Ronnie Raygun implementing that program? Not really, it only targeted the bad sort of people.

We have they freaking country we deserve for being a bunch of bed wetting imperialist cowards.

beamish said...

...says the lefty that would shit himself uncontrollably in fear of al-Qaeda reprisals if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was put on civilian trial in a courthouse in his city.

beamish said...

How many *human beings* were wrongfully detained in Guatnanamo Bay for indefinite periods of time without trial?

Wrongfully detained? Zero.

Kept alive on my dime? Too many.

Jack Camwell said...

Really Beamish? Zero?

http://washingtonindependent.com/26172/24-gitmo-prisoners-ruled-wrongfully-held-in-just-the-last-3-months

That's cool though. They're not American citizens, therefore not humans, and don't get the same rights as we do.

Silverfiddle said...

@Ducky: We have been surrendering due process under the guise of security for decades.

The nature and degree of the threat is in dispute, but I believe you dismiss it too cavalierly, even while I can agree with you that we've overreacted.

As for the rest of your statement, it just sounds like "quack, quack, quack...

Silverfiddle said...

Jack:

We live in a republic that recognizes the fundamental rights of all human beings. Citizens voluntarily surrender some freedoms (like driving where the hell ever and how the hell ever I want, etc) in exchange for a government that protects the rights of all. Liberals like to call this a social contract.

Prisoners of war are treated humanely and there is habeas corpus. We follow the Geneva Convention. Your contention "They're not American citizens, therefore not humans, and don't get the same rights as we do. is ridiculous.

Under our law and international law prisoners of war do not get treated the same as a citizen, or even a foreigner, who breaks the law on our soil. Two different cases under the law.

Now, if you want to argue that we have defined concepts like "war" and "battlefield" too broadly, I'm amenable.

beamish said...

Really Beamish? Zero?

Didn't stutter.

That's cool though. They're not American citizens, therefore not humans, and don't get the same rights as we do.

Actually, they've gotten more rights, human or otherwise. You're not going to sit there and tell me they earned every meal they ate at Club Gitmo, are you? Under the Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants (spies, saboteurs, false flag infiltrators, non-uniformed combatants) can be executed on the spot when captured.

That the feckless Obama administration has changed the present definition of "unlawful combatant" to exclude some people does not magically transform them from what they were.

Let's play recidivism roulette. What are the odds the released "innocents" lead us straight to more terrorists to kill or if necessary, capture?

Jack Camwell said...

Does it really matter? Nope. They were wrongfully detained. What's the difference between an innocent foreign national wrongfully detained because the military deemed him

You're a fool if you think that it's okay to violate someone's rights just because we deem the person a "combatant." You seriously cannot say that this legislation is wrong but say that what we're doing to other humans is okay.

What you're basically saying is that it's only wrong if it's perpetrated against an American citizen. That flies in the face of natural rights theory, and the idea of human rights as a total. Rights are for everyone, not just some.

Let's be honest, these are all word games to make you sleep better at night.

beamish said...

Still, there's the matter of waterboarding. Are these "innocents" going to compensate the cleaning staff who had to mop the floor after an interrogation, so no one would slip and get hurt?

Silverfiddle said...

They were wrongfully detained.

You're way out there on that one, Jack. Were the ones taken from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan with guns in their hands "wrongfully detained?" Based up on what? Based upon the Geneva Convention, you are wrong.

You need to state your position more clearly, because you are conflating unrelated issues.

beamish said...

You're a fool if you think that it's okay to violate someone's rights just because we deem the person a "combatant."

Your "innocent" Abu Qatada flunkie Mohammed el Gharani was returned to Chad, where he claims he's from, a country with no records of his ever living there. Who's government definitions are better, those of a military tracking children known to accompany wanted terrorists, or Arabic speaking kids in Pakistan that don't know where they're from?

You seriously cannot say that this legislation is wrong but say that what we're doing to other humans is okay.

Sure I can. And did.

Jack Camwell said...

Silver, of course I'm not suggesting that. There were people detained and sent to Gitmo, held without trial, who were later found to not even have ANY connection with Al-Qaeda or terrorism.

Beamish, you clearly do not care about contradiction of thought or ideology. I hate to use harsh words, but people like you are exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party.

God forbid we try to be consistent in our beliefs.

bunkerville said...

I will stay out of the weeds, but you outdid yourself on this one SF.It would be nice if one of the candidates might just give a mention about the USA locking us up. Silly me.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks Bunker, but I can't take credit.

Hugh Farnham wrote this, a patriotic military officer.

beamish said...

Beamish, you clearly do not care about contradiction of thought or ideology.

Sure I do. A Chadian (or Saudi Arabian, depending on his story and who he's telling it to) child with known, substantive ties to an internationally wanted terrorist captured alongside other wanted terrorists and implicated by other terrorists inside Urdu-speaking Pakistan has a less "innocent" profile than a child sitting in your living room playing XBox.

I hate to use harsh words, but people like you are exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party.

It's a big tent. We even let Euro-socialists like Ron Paul and devout Carterite populists like Michelle Bachmann in.

God forbid we try to be consistent in our beliefs.

Terrorists need love too, huh?

Perhaps you should find some consistency before you go yardsticking others. Mohammed el-Gharani was a known associate of terrorists in a cell run by Abu Qatada in Britain. If you can come up with a credible story about how he as a child financed his trip from Britain to Pakistan to be captured in a mosque alongside other terrorists, I'm amenable to listening to it.

Did he win the trip playing XBox?

Jersey McJones said...

This is funny. I remember when the Patriot Act was first passed, and so I asked conservative bloggers, "Are you still going to like this bill if a Democrat gets in the White House?" Sure enough...

Phonies.

JMJ

beamish said...

There were people detained and sent to Gitmo, held without trial, who were later found to not even have ANY connection with Al-Qaeda or terrorism.

But your media example given, Mohammed el-Gharani, is a known associate of Abu Qatada, a very definite connection to al-Qaeda AND terrorism.

What say you of Club Gitmo detainees who were released from luxurious waterboarding spa treatments and spiritual retreats into the Holy Quran only to return to terrorism?

Will Mohammed el-Gharani will a one out of seven Gitmo recidivist?

beamish said...

Jersey,

This is funny. I remember when the Patriot Act was first passed, and so I asked conservative bloggers, "Are you still going to like this bill if a Democrat gets in the White House?" Sure enough...

Phonies.


I wish I had been around. Back then I was saying the Department of Homeland Security should be closed when Democrats are in the White House.

I've never been a Patriot Act paranoid, but this new stuff added by the Obamaoists is just downright creepy.

Then again, Bush's DHS Secretary never announced that returning Iraq War vets might be "terrorists."

Jack Camwell said...

The more I think about it, beamish, the more I realize that it doesn't really matter how much they think the person is a terrorist. But since you're insisting on further examples:

http://pubrecord.org/torture/6242/frees-guantanamo-detainee-tortured/

and for the followup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouad_Mahmoud_al_Rabiah

Fact is, nothing you say is supporting your argument. You say that it would be wrong for the military to detain an American citizen without trial on the suspicion that the citizen is a terrorist or has links to terrorism. But, you defend the decisions of the military to detain foreign nationals without trial on suspicion that they are or have ties to terrorists.

If that is your position, then you either don't believe in natural rights theory, don't realize that you're contradicting yourself, don't care, or just all of the above.

The fact is, you were okay with rights violations and wrongful detainment until it became more of a reality to you. You're okay with foreign nationals having their rights skirted for "security," but the thought of an American citizen being subjected to that treatment, perhaps you being subjected to that treatment, makes you cry foul.

At this point, you can only conclude one of two things in order to remain consistent in your beliefs and uncontradictory:

1. It's wrong to detain people and hold them indefinitely without trial, regardless of what nationality they are (if you're in the battlefield, and a terrorist is trying to kill you, that's obviously different. Fouad, mentioned up there, was merely suspected of giving money to terrorists. What if the government suspects YOU of giving money to terrorists).

2. It's okay to detain people, even American citizens, and hold them indefinitely without trial if they are suspected of being or connected to terrorists, as long as it's in the interest of national security.

Of course, you can continue to believe whatever you want, but I hope you see where your logic is completely broken.

Hugh Farnham said...

Sorry for the late comments, but I worked very early into the morning.

Jersey: I am one of the few conservatives who raged against the implementation of the so-called "Patriot Act". Trust me, I've done my part to convince Americans about its evil.

Jack: I believe there are more innocents at GITMO than most would like to admit. The problem is two fold: First, when you waive cash in the face of a 2nd world military like Pakistan and tell them to scoop up al-Qaeda you will get lots of warm bodies with rap sheets - just don't rub the ink on those sheets, it's still wet.

The second problem is the law of unintended consequences. An innocent may end up in GITMO but he may not be innocent when he returns to his country.

Imagine I was touring the Ukraine. The Russian FSB then gives me the black hoodie treatment and sends me to Siberia for some alleged Chechen involvement. You bet your nuts I would be filled with white hot anger by the time the State Department finally secured my release.

I would want vengeance against these FSB thugs - indeed, I would think of nothing else.

Part of the problem is that our law of war was built upon the foundation of European armies. Uniforms, chains of command, chaplains, medics, all the trappings of modern warfare.

We are dealing with an enemy still in the 13th century - with AK-47's, satellite phones and wrapped in a bed sheet.

Hugh Farnham said...

Let me bring together the NDAA and how we can expect the abuses we've given other nationalities to be visited upon us.

Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge. While I can't defend Randy's personal philosophies I can defend his right to have been left alone and his right not to have his beloved wife murdered in front of him and his son as well.

I met Randy years ago in Iowa. A decade had passed since Ruby Ridge but I could sense his burning anger over his losses still remaining.

It all started with an ATF informant looking for a quick bust and a wad of cash from the Federales. Kind of like us asking other countries for al-Qaeda operatives and paying cash. When Randy wouldn't commit illegal acts (he sawed down a shotgun to 18", the minimum length) I believe the ATF then cut the barrel shorter and charged him with a NFA offense. Later, Randy refused to become an informant himself. That's when the siege started.

Randy's intelligence dossier passed from bureaucrat to bureaucrat, each time some new allegation was added to his rap sheet. In the end much of what the Federales said about him were outright lies.

Two juries vindicated Randy, one criminal and the other civil. He left Idaho and returned to Iowa with $2,000,000 federal payment for his sufferings.

What I'm trying to get at here is this. When those who defend natural rights are finally targeted as domestic enemies (we're not far from that now) you can expect turncoats and informants filling up quotas for bodies. As Joesph Stalin once wrote on a death list, "NEED MORE NAMES!"

This is difficult to imagine in today's America. Let me throw in a few more ingredients into your fertile imagination:

- A massive dollar devaluation (say, 40%)
- Mass civil unrest as the welfare piglets find the teat has run dry
- A false flag or two blamed on people like you and me (What do you think Fast and Furious was really about?!!)

Mark Adams said...

Jack: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to... OURSLEVES" is the pre-Amble which sets the tone for the document. The Constitution document was set out to be clear of who it is intended to protect.

We have fought wars around the globe for "natural rights and the idea of human rights" throughout our history. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't.
Ever think of it this way....THIS struggle against THIS enemy, who's wish IS to defy and eradicate natural & human rights, IS just but one more war against those oppressors for which we have fought against throughout in history of our nation.

The Geneva convention is clear, POW/enemy combatants are subject to indefinite detention until the end of the hostilities.

Silver, you know my stance on this law, section 1031 & 1032 define covered persons and both section 1031 & 1032 clearly state The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
I am not sure why people are freaking out about this? Even constitutional conservative Senator Jim DeMint voted for it.

Hugh Farnham said...

Mark:

These sections do not make it mandatory for military custody - and they do not prohibit it.

Personally, I detest these congressional jackals sniffing hungrily around my rights and clouding this issue of Habeas Corpus with attorney talk.

From Turley's analysis:

"The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

This administration feels it can murder American citizens anywhere it wants in the name of this war. It doesn't make sense they won't cross the threshold of indefinite detention as well - they already have!

Anonymous said...

Th crux of the matter seems neatly summed up in this one comment by Hugh:

"... [O]ur law of war was built upon the foundation of European armies. Uniforms, chains of command, chaplains, medics, all the trappings of modern warfare.

We are dealing with an enemy still in the 13th century - with AK-47's, satellite phones ..."


"Our" law also happens to be rooted in Christian principles. It codifies and binds us to concepts of fairness, decency, humaneness and compassion entirely foreign to the barbarians and savages who comprise the majority of the world's population.

Because Muslim extremists have taken to committing suicide by using themselves as human weapons of mass destruction -- and because they have no compunctions whatsoever against using their own women, children and helpless aged as "human shields" or retreating to "sacred" places, primarily the interior of historic mosques knowing Westerners burdened with a heart, a conscience and a sense of decency would never bomb these structures to rubble, "we" are at a distinct disadvantage in any effort to combat these diabolical fanatics.

Because of the actions of a few Muslim extremists, "we" are now subject to ritual harassment and the possibility of unreasonable search and seizure every time we board an airplane.

In my view it is because we have have "stood on principle," and stoutly refused to DISCRIMINATE OPENLY against the MOST LIKELY SUSPECTS, that we have left ourselves wide open to the possibility of abuse of our rights as legitimateAmerican citizens.

Sorry, but I do not believe that verminous individuals like Adam Gedahn, "Talban Johnny," "Major Hassan" and others of their despicable ilk qualify as legitimate American citizens.

Once you have chosen to associate yourself with any pernicious organization whose primary goal is to undermine and destroy the United States of America, all of your rights of citizenship should be taken away, and you should be treated like the traitor you are.

Our sacred founding principles and ideals of law and justice were designed for a people morally, spiritually, socially and psychologically conditioned to agree to them and abide by them.

Those not so conditioned ought not to qualify for that level of protection.

Very sadly we are trapped and hobbled by our own professed ideals into adopting policies that appear downright suicidal -- and unlike the barbarians who threaten us we won't take anyone down with us but our naive, gullible, unworldly idealistic selves.

Individuals should have the right to choose martyrdom, if it suits their ideas of right and wrong, but no one should have the right to IMPOSE martyrdom on an entire nation, in order to stand firm on Principle.

Our populace is not to be equated with Kipling's Six Hundred who rode blindly into the Valley of Death simply because they were ordered to by an imbecile.

"The U.S. Constitution is Not a Suicide Pact."

~ FreeThinke

Mark Adams said...

"and they do not prohibit it"
I would beg to differ, Hugh.

CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Meaning if the President then ordered it, it would "expand" the authority. The legislation prohibits it.

Anonymous said...

The problem with adopting One-Size-Fits-All laws that do not openly discriminate against the most likely suspects is, of course, the capacity of such diffuse, generic statutes to be turned against the very people who wrote them the moment an unprincipled opponent (i.e, a Dictocrat ;-) gets into power.

The laws don't slide off the books with every change of administration.

Even so, I seriously doubt the Founders were thinking of Satanic Cults, Asiatic Barbarians, Islamic Fundamentalists and African Savage Practitioners of Voodoo when they wrote the Constitution and amended it with The Bill of Rights.

It might be "nice," but I think it's naive to imagine they were thinking of the entire world population as it is in reality.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Jack,

Most of your points are well taken, and I share your concerns, but sooner or later the demands of REALPOLITIK must take precedence over idealism and ideology. They always do.

It's possibly the saddest of many sad facts of life but when the chips are down MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. It's naive to deny that.

The sainted Abraham Lincoln is REVERED for having suspended habeas corpus, jailed or intimidated all meaninful opposition, thumbed his nose (figuratively, I assume) at Chief Justice Roger Taney [pronounced "Tawny," God only knows why] so that Lincoln to force his will upon a reluctant, largely unwilling nation.

His scofflaw approach to governance resulted in the gruesome, unnecessary death of SIX-HUNDRED-THIRTY-FIVE -THOUSAND, countless maimed and wounded, chronically ill and insane, the impoverishment and lifelong suffering of countless widows and orphans and the loss and destruction of countless millions of dollars with of property and over a hundred years of bitterness and hate dividing the nation. Yet the hagiographers have turned this man -- one of the worst mass murderers in history -- into a secular SAINT, and we meekly ACCEPT their verdict. Go figger.

If you're looking for "Justice," you will never find it in this world, Jack.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

Fact is, nothing you say is supporting your argument. You say that it would be wrong for the military to detain an American citizen without trial on the suspicion that the citizen is a terrorist or has links to terrorism. But, you defend the decisions of the military to detain foreign nationals without trial on suspicion that they are or have ties to terrorists.

Actually, the fact is you're not arguing against anything I've said.

I have no problem with the military detaining "unlawful combatants" under the strict guidelines enacted by the Bush administration, be they American citizen or not. (see John Walker Lindh, Bryant Neal Vinas, etc.)

What I DO have a problem with is the Obamaoist muddying of this process with new guidelines and shifted definitions that are inevitably (and perhaps intentionally) more vague.

beamish said...

The sainted Abraham Lincoln is REVERED for having suspended habeas corpus, jailed or intimidated all meaninful opposition, thumbed his nose (figuratively, I assume) at Chief Justice Roger Taney [pronounced "Tawny," God only knows why] so that Lincoln to force his will upon a reluctant, largely unwilling nation.

Yawn.

Abraham Lincoln is perhaps more revered for his granting of habeas corpus and other rights and dignities to Jefferson Davis' 500 slaves, jackass.

Finntann said...

Jack, got it... you don't like Gitmo. So, what's your alternative?

Contrary to the belief of many progressives, war is not UN sanctioned international law enforcement and the military are not cops.

The problem is you thinking we need to bring them to justice instead of to Allah?

If you have sufficient intelligence to send a squad in to kick down a door, toss in a flash bang, and capture a terrorist you have sufficient intelligence to send a squad in, break a window and toss in a fragmentation grenade. In other words, it is a legitimate military target.

The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy, and I got news for you bubba, your enemy doesn't give a shit about your "rights". The fact that you won't kill the other seven people in a room to take a high value target earns you their contempt not their respect.

They don't think like you.
They don't act like you.
They don't fight like you.
They don't govern like you.

As I said from nearly the beginning, if we had rolled the artillery in and levelled Fallujah that would have been the end of most of our problems with organized resistance in the occupation of Iraq.

Not compassionate enough for you? Drop leaflets informing the populace that the city will cease to exist in three days... that's the extent of my compassion.

It isn't the military you have to blame for this shithole, it's the state department with overly idealistic views of turning Iraq into New Jersey.

Your enemy thinks you lack the will and stomach for warfare... and frankly, they're probably right. Best you withdraw and strip search grannies before boarding a plane if it makes you feel better.

Finntann said...

Jersey, from day one my position on the Patriot Act was Ben Frankin's, the same goes for the NDAA:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Disband Homeland Security, Disband the TSA... while your at it you can throw in a half dozen or so other unenumerated powers ursurped by the federal government.

To the liberal argument..."well you don't have to fly if you don't like it", I offer "you don't have to walk down the street either".

If the airlines want to strip search and x-ray passengers, it is within their right to do so, they own the planes. For the federal government to do so constitutes unreasonable search. It's the balless judges pissing their pants and letting politicians get away with this crap that is eroding our freedoms, not anyone on this blog.

Me, I don't fly on my dime anymore. I'll fly for my employer but that's about it, and it has nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with the TSA. By my reckoning the airlines are out 10 or 15K already. I'll drive across country before I'll fly again, and if I go to Europe or Asia I'll fly a foreign flagged carrier simply out of spite.

Cheers!

Z said...

No, Silverfiddle. I'M the 'lady who lunches' and I won't give up the lovely title :-) I've sung the song too many times and love it.

I was wondering if Obama's appointing of people who congress doesn't want is a 'hostility'? When do we get to arrest him? :-)

KP said...

Great thread!

<><><>

Z: do you wear a red hat :-)

Silverfiddle said...

Z: Thanks for the clarification. Ducky always refers to "ladies who lunch" in the plural, so I assumed he was grouping AOW and perhaps others in there as well.

What is it about liberal men having problems with smart conservative women?

Anonymous said...

I often wonder what Ducky's final thought might be if he had the misfortune to be blown to bits by a Muslim Suicide bomber?

Do you think, even then, he'd be searching for a way to blame "Zionists," "Corporatists," "Chucklenuts," "Kapital" and "Saint Ronnie Raygun?"

Would there be time to think at all in such a situation?

Only the dead know for sure -- and they ain't talkin.'

Still, I'd rather take the chance of being blown to bits in mid air than submit to the TSA.

Freedom cannot exist without taking risks.

A Risk-Free Society is a Society of Slaves and Automata.

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

I'm thinking one of the enemy's smartyr meatbombers will have to detonate itself inside an airport security inspection scanner and frag its fellow boarding passengers for them to make a "how did we overlook such a possibility" conclusion. Then again "poor" people make portable artillery rockets and warheads in their garages in other countries.

It's really a shame that fighting wars in Islamic countries creates terrorists among people we shouldn't profile at the airport, huh?

It's like nuclear bomb detectors in ports. If the nuke goes off once the cargo ship it is on reaches the docks for inspection, how will we know if the guy sent to inspect the containers was there detecting it when it went off?

Will Jack Bauer get there in time, Hollywood?

Always On Watch said...

I am not among The Ladies Who Lunch (as Duck put it). Unless one calls me a Lady Who Lunches because I either eat lunch at work or here at home between caregiving tasks.

Regarding rights....

IMO, civil rights as found enumerated in our Constitution are not the same as human rights, the latter a term often used by the Left and the United Nations.

Civil rights as enumerated in our Constitution originated from more than one source but the codification of those rights is found in the Constitution.

Also, conviction for acts of treason and the commission of certain felonies do cancel one's civil rights.

Take a look around the world. Note that many countries do not extend to non-citizens the same rights as extended to citizens.

In my view, we should distinguish between civil rights and morality, that is, the humane treatment of individuals.

I fear that I'm not being clear in this comment, but I'm going to hit "Publish," anyway.

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
Our sacred founding principles and ideals of law and justice were designed for a people morally, spiritually, socially and psychologically conditioned to agree to them and abide by them.

As in accountability and responsibility?

Self-government via small government cannot work if citizens don't have as part of the fabric of their being both accountability and responsibility -- BEFORE the law intervenes. In other words, the pre-frontal lobes have to be functioning!

Always On Watch said...

Did Lincoln write anything about his suspension of habeas corpus?

Is there a contradiction between his position that the Union cannot be dissolved and his determination that secessionists were traitors?

Damn. I hope that we don't fight the 19th Century American Civil War again all over the web.

Maybe me father was right: Wars don't really settle anything. **sigh**

Silverfiddle said...

I get what you are saying, AOW...

Always On Watch said...

Silverfiddle,
Glad that what I said made sense to you.

I need at least three cups of strong coffee to get going in the morning. Damn, I hate old age.

dmarks said...

"It gets only better. Now a Congressman from Pennsylvania has introduced a bill to strip people of their citizenship for engaging in "hostilities"."

Reminds me of Ron Paul and others, who want to ignore the 14th Amendment and strip native-born Americans of their citizenship for the supposed crimes of their parents.

dmarks said...

Ducky said: "We have been surrendering due process under the guise of security for decades."

No liberal can speak in favor of due process without looking like a hypocritical fool. Look at racist "affirmative action", in which individuals are punished and denied rights just because they have the same skin color as some other 'bad guys'.

Teresa said...

I don't believe a thing that comes out of the Liar-in-Chief's mouth.

Anonymous said...

Violence does settle things.

In the words of Robert Heinlein,

"Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it... Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor... Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

We are dealing with bullies here who are not afraid to use the ultimate sanction, if needed, to get their way. I learned at an early age there was one sure way to deal with bullies.

dmarks said...

As for the idea of violence never settling anything., has anyone ever proposed any sort of well thought out solution to the problem of the aggression of the Axis in WW2 that did not involve fighting back?

MK said...

"it was Obama who demanded the detention wording be included in the bill - "

Hard to believe it was the same obama squawking so shrilly about the detention of terrorists in gitmo back in the day.

Then again, it's par for the course for a leftard.

Anonymous said...

Been reading the remarks here. Just thought I might clarify a couple of things. First, yes there have been innocent folks in Guantanamo. We know this because many of them have been released after it was determined they were not a threat to us or anyone else. The fact is that many of these folks were simply turned in by disgruntled neighbors looking to make a quick buck on the bounty. Second, I don't care what this bill says. It's illegal, and I doubt it will stand up in a court of law if it is ever legally challenged. Third, it is a felony for any government employee to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights. Just look up Section 242 of the U.S. code. In addition, government employees are also personally liable for civil damages if they violate someone's rights as well. So, before you go out and start rounding up citizens, breaking up peaceful protests, or confiscating firearms in house to house searches, I would advise you to think long and hard about your actions. These laws are on the books and they do carry stiff criminal and civil penalties and at some point you could be prosecuted or sued for your actions. Just sayin.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9:37 AM:

Excellent points. All of what the TSA does is illegal - much the same with other alphabet soup agencies.

I believe Section 242 and the oath of office each of these bureaucrats mouthed will come back to haunt them.

The future most likely will not be like today. I believe the future promises much more freedom, but also much more hardship than today.

The people of the future will be constantly reminded of the easy life of our generation in contrast to the difficult life they have to contend with - much of it due to decisions by political leaders and bureaucrats today. They will be very angry.

In the future I foresee Nuremberg-style tribunals where high level politicians, political appointees, and senior executive service (SES) bureaucrats will be tried for their egregious crimes against the Constitution and violating their oath.

dmarks said...

"Third, it is a felony for any government employee to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights."

That makes Ron Paul a would-be felon, if he had his way. He wants to strip citizenship rights and protections from the children of people who have been suspected of certain crimes.