Folks, this article by Peter Wehner nails it. You may hate me for posting this, but it has to be said.
Glenn Beck: Harmful to the Conservative Movement
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Beck. In the past I assumed he was a typical figure in the pundit and cable-media world. Only recently have I watched portions of his television program, as well as interviews with him, and heard parts of his radio program. And what I’ve seen should worry the conservative movement.
I say that because he seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.†(He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.)
His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger—the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
Update, Sep 24, 2009 – Note to commenter theCL: When you attribute your scurrilous allegation about Mark Levin, a direct quote and source or a link to prove he said what you say he said, send it. Until then, you are banned from commenting here. You can reach us through the contact form.
.jpg)
I think that Glenn Beck suffers from the same literacy disorder OBAMA does. “TELEPROMPTERIDISSSS”, which simply means he reads what is on the teleprompter. It is hard to take someone like Beck seriously when the guy use to do stand-up comedy and entertainment roles. How much experience does Beck have in politics, the law, and Washington, D.C.? Little to none. The statement that there is little difference between Democrat and Republican is a giveaway in how much Beck pretends to know……. Glenn Beck probably never ever heard of Ronald Reagan!!
Sorry, but I have to agree there is little difference between the two parties. I am a hardcore conservative. Over the past couple of decades, the democrats have shifted farther to the left and many republicans have followed suit.
Neither party stands true to conservatism, which has the idea of conserving as its root. Both parties have continued to grow government and intrude in the lives of the sovereign citizens. In so doing, they fail to conserve the principles promoted by the Constitution, which provided for a relatively small general government with the majority of power being held by the states and the individual. Now, both parties sign on to crazy bills like the recent “Hate Crimes” law which used, as it’s primary source of power, the interstate commerce clause. There is nothing conservative about perverting the Constitution, regardless of the reasoning or outcome.
Hey dog, I’ll bet you like Michael Weiner. Am I right?
MLF
Nope, sorry.
I am just a fan of our Constitution and our founding fathers. I read the Constitution en toto at least two or three times a year (every year for the past decade or so) and often read various Articles and Amendments when looking at SCOTUS decisions and proposed laws.
I also enjoy reading and rereading the constitutional debates, The Federalist & Anti-Federalist Papers, and many of the debates leading up to the Revolution. What we have today looks very little like what our Framers tried to pass to us.
No, I am not a libertarian. I am Jeffersonian in my thought. I believe in a smaller central government, States’ Rights, and the sovereign individual.
How ’bout you?
No, I am not a libertarian. I am Jeffersonian in my thought.
That indicates a rather superficial line of thinking, especially if you think there is anything conservative about Thomas Jefferson. Of all the Founding Fathers, he was the least conservative, by either the definition of the time or in our understanding of what the term means today. He was a radical whose philosophy was essentially Rousseauean, and the only people on the right who might give even scant praise to Rousseau are neoconservatives.
Um…had Jefferson been a conservative in his day, he would have fought for the British to conserve that way of life. Yes, he was “liberal” for that time. Most people today make the distinction between classical-liberalism and liberalism since the left employed the word liberal when progressive became a bad thing…now we see the left going back to calling themselves progressives since liberal has garnered negative connotations.
Newsflash, dog:
The constitution is many great things…..but the one thing it is NOT (which continually escapes you Paulistas) is a SUICIDE PACT.
Read the part about protecting us from enemies, foreign & domestic.
I know, I know—it’s a square peg to a round hole for ya. But try again, anyway.
Scott,
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you suggesting Thomas Jefferson had a suicidal view of these United States?
Dog, I am a Reagan conservative. I agree with your views up to a point. The base of the Republican party stands true to conservatism. However, obviously the base has not been represented that way in Washington in many years. But, the Democrat leaders are a bunch of Marxists. You can’t honestly say that about Republican leaders. So, to say there is little difference between the two parties is ridiculous. I don’t advocate continuing down the road of voting for the lessor of the two evils. I advocate taking the Republican party back to it’s conservative roots, where it belongs.
MLF,
I completely agree with you. The democrats are mostly old hippie communists and young neo-socialists. As for the republican party, there are too many RINOs trying to push it toward progressive (leftist) thought. I liked Bush for the most part, but he wasn’t a conservative. Too many liberal republicans acted like 80′s democrats and blew the last few elections for us. They ran one of the most liberal candidates (next to Arlen Specter) McCain and complained we aren’t liberal enough for the mainstream. If the GOP runs a true conservative for a change, we’ll see a landslide in 2012.
When I say to the left, I am using the true scale, rather than the common scale. On the far left is totalitarianism while on the far right is anarchy. In that respect, both parties have shifted far to the left. Reagan managed to push us back to the right, removing some of the government bureaucracy, but it came back quickly.
Just considering ObamaCare, we have a good number of republicans trying to jump on the “reform” wagon because they think it’s what Americans want to hear. It isn’t health care that needs reforming–it’s government. If Congress hadn’t overstepped its constitutional bounds and made laws that hindered competition, we wouldn’t have this mess. And look at the so-called “republican” morons that voted for bailouts and stimulus and the pork they tacked on. They are acting like democrats but putting their spin on it and calling it a republican idea. That’s like bottling urine and saying, “but it’s Tommy Hilfiger urine.”
And though you didn’t make the comment, I have to say, I wasn’t a Ron Paul supporter. I voted McCain–mostly because I like Palin and didn’t want to waste a vote on a 3rd party.
Dog, please accept my sincere apologies for calling you a fan of Michael Weiner! LOL!
haha. Okay. I mainly listen to Mike Church, Andrew Wilkow, Hannity & Levin–with a splash of Rush tossed in there…Then I go to the lefty stations when I want a laugh or blog material.
No dog……what I AM suggesting is that many in the Ron Paul / isolationist camp DO have a “suicidal view”.
Not consciously, mind you. But rather by this singular, strident, accross-the-board “Give-Me-Liberty-Or-Give-Me-DEATH” line of response to almost any foreign military conflict or security enactment (i.e. the Patriot Act).
Understand this: When Thomas Jefferson was alive…..there were no nuclear weapons. There were no airlines. There were no telephones. There were no computers. There was no cyberspace.
To ignore all of this in the stiffest & narrowest of all possible straw-man definitions of “Liberty” is insane.
Unfortunately, that is what many in the “Paulista” wing of the Republican, Libertarian & Independent parties do. And that is why, to most movement conservatives, such thinking has more in common with leftist ideology in terms of it’s potential ramifications to American security.
The constitution specifies the responsibility to protect the people of the United States from enemies both foreign & domestic. That trumps all else. Without it, our liberty is no good to ANY of us.
ScottT, I will not steal your words, but I might try to memorize and repeat the logic you just used! Excellent!
As I’ve stated, I’m not a “Paulista,” so, I will not attempt to defend them. As for me…
I agree. The government is supposed to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. That these United States lacked the modern modes of communication and warfare does not mean Mr. Jefferson lacked a fundamental knowledge of defense or liberty. The initial quote that comes to mind (not Jefferson’s) is “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
That being said, despite the rapid acceleration of technology, the ideas of Liberty remain the same. There is no straw-man about it. Our founders saw fit to create a federal–not national–government. They believed that Liberty was best protected by the states and people, rather than a leviathan government that was perpetually out of touch with its constitutency. Congress has a list of enumerated powers–17 to be precise. Any laws outside of that are unconstitutional. As for the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT II, my sentiments are this: I don’t care what the government does to non-nationals. Non-national combatants in or out of uniform on US soil are enemies of war and not covered by the Constitution. However, American citizens, whether they are terrorists or not, are covered. Ex Parte Milligan and Ex parte Merryman are legal cases agreeing with this fact.
Contrary to your assertion, this thinking is not in line with leftist ideology. Left wing politics wants a supreme, totalitarian government (think KGB and Gestapo). Simply stated, some leftists co-oped the term “Liberty” in order to assist America’s enemies in bringing about our downfall and eventual slide into absolute despotism. It had nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with hating America and hurting Bush.
As for your final statement, I couldn’t disagree more. Without Liberty, security means nothing. Slaves protected by their masters are still slaves. I would rather live free and die young than be a slave from cradle to grave for 100 unbearable years.
Dog, what is the problem with trying to keep terrorists from blowing up our cities and preserving our liberty at the same time? If you can think of a better way of finding out if people are plotting an attack than what the Patriot Act allows, please let us know. I don’t call that shredding the Constitution, but apparently, you do. To equate the Patriot Act with slavery is stupid. You may be willing to die young. I suppose you don’t care if your family or friends die young, either. I’d rather try to prevent that, thank you very much.
the dog is another conspiracy theorist. Hey dog, when Bush 43 was is office, were you dragged off the street for questioning by the Gestapo? If so, please tell us all about it.
A couple months ago, I read where the grand total of all Muslims detained as material witnesses during the post-9/11 investigation was 723. A little more than half of that number had overstayed their visas or were otherwise here illegally and were deported. Most were soon set free and a few were actually prosecuted for various terror-related crimes. That is the phony allegation about the Patriot Act, that some huge number of Americans were spied upon, denied freedom of speech, or were locked up.
Sgt Tim,
I made absolutely no claims about any number of muslims rounded up. Nor did I make any complaints about being rounded up personally or assertions of conspiracy. I’m more than willing to discuss my thoughts and comments with you, but I ask you to refrain from setting up ridiculous straw men. It truly insults the intelligence of both of us.
dog: Re-take Readers Comprehension 101. I wrote that you are a conspiracy theorist and challenged you to show evidence that Bush 43 employed the Patriot Act against Americans illegally, unfairly, or for a political purpose. The information I provided is evidence that he did not. Instead of whining about my “straw man,” provide some or any amount of proof that justifies your fear. Lacking such proof, we are left with only evidence of your paranoia.
Sgt Tim,
I read and comprehended your post. I chose to ignore the ad hominem. I will give a nod to it on this post so you do not feel sleighted or compelled to continue.
As for cases which violated the Constitution and previous SCOTUS decisions (ex parte Merryman and ex parte Milligan) we can look to men such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, both American citizens accused of crimes against America and both denied habeas corpus for a lengthy period. Eventually, in Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Padilla v Rumsfeld, the SCOTUS got it right, saying American citizens cannot be denied civil rights simply by being called enemy combatants. Furthermore, ex parte Quirin does not apply to these or other American citizens as they are still citizens. You’ll remember those with Quirin were considered Germans either by birth or by means of renouncing American citizenship when they swore oathes of allegiance to Hitler and nazi Germany. As I mentioned earlier–though not by name–even 16 year old Ashton Lundeby is an example of abuse of power. I am uncertain if he is still in jail, but I know he spent over 60 days without being charged with anything because the FBI said a bomb threat came from his IP address, despite evidence he was not home at the time.
If these men are guilty of conspiring against the United States or taking arms against her, they should be tried as traitors and–if found guilty–executed. This is the law of the land; it is guaranteed by the Constitution and supported by the Supreme Court through precedent.
As sovereign individuals, we are the last line of defense against tyranny. When a government, any government, can arbitrarily change, create, or abolish fundamental laws and rights–there is no liberty or security, only despotism. The capriciousness of King George and his arbitrary laws was one reason we rebelled and settled into our Constitution. That great document is void if government refuses to abide by the laws it set up for itself.
You are a patronizing jerk.
That aside, you are also making an unsubstantiated claim about the Ashton Lundeby case straight from the Lew Rockwell crowd; the case against Lundeby is still pending (see yesterday’s news report) so whether he is guilty has yet to be established in court of law. His claim of not being home at the time strikes me as the ‘Hal 9000′ defense, e.g. his PC must have made the threat all on its own.
As to the innocence of Padilla and Hamdi, Padilla pled guilty in federal court and Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia after surrendering his U.S. citizenship. Neither was innocent.
In Quirin, all were arrested on American soil and one of the six executed was an American citizen. (Dig deeper for the case law that currently prevails; Quirin is not it.)
Dog, I know you are afraid that the patriot act might cause us to “become enslaved”
Would it help you if i told you that the people who attacked us on 911 have exactly that in mind.
What did you think we were fighting? Al Qaeda is not a debate team.
You want to gamble with your life? Fine, but just so you know a guy named Zizi was just indicted this morning for trying to cash in your chips.
Just saying.
Handyman,
We gamble with our lives every day, so that has little to do with anything. I invite you to point to anything I have written that states I oppose fighting Islamofascists or defending the United States. As soon as you do, I will quickly retract my statement or clarify my position.
If there is any true disagreement I see between myself and the majority of posters here, it is in what freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to stay alive. As for me, I am unwilling to sacrifice the Constitution and surrender my inalienable rights so I can feel safer. Nor do I believe I have the power to rescind any other American’s rights. We can take this out of the realm of Islamofascists and apply these principles to another debate. There are those who claim removing the Second Amendment and banning all firearms would make Americans safer. If you knew it would reduce crime by 10% would you surrender your 2nd Amendment rights for that? As for me, even if I knew it would cut crime 90%, I would not give up such essential liberty. Nor would I surrender if I knew for fact I would fall victim of a gun crime and die a year from today if I decided to maintain my rights.
MLF,
I never used the words shredding the Constitution, nor did I equate either PATRIOT Act with slavery. I am a proponent of defending the US at home and abroad. My guess, from your response, is that you are unfamiliar with both cases cited. In short, they say habeas corpus cannot be denied to American citizens as long as the courts are open and–likewise–that the US Military cannot try civilians while courts are open.
Do I have a problem with the government listening to international terrorists who might be connected via fiber optic to an American citizen? Nope. Do I have a problem with the government locking up a 16 year-old NC boy because a bomb threat to his school came from his IP address? Not exactly. I do take issue with the child being denied habeas corpus because the government labeled him a “terrorist.” Back in the day, many of my friends phoned in bomb threats hoping to get out of a class or school. Kids set off cherry bombs and m-80s in the bathroom. I am not saying that is okay, but that a childish prank is a lot different than terrorism.
As for PATRIOT=slavery, etc. I didn’t make that correlation, either. My response was a stand alone paragraph in response to an isolated thought, which was that liberty isn’t worth having without security. Thoreau commented most men are content to lead lives of quiet desperation and Patrick Henry asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Perhaps you believe it is, but I do not. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, some died, some lost their entire fortunes, but they were all willing to give every last ounce of their existence to create a government where men could be free and live by a written law rather than whimsical fiat. Perhaps I am naive, but I believe the Declaraion of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible are the three greatest things ever penned and each one is worth fighting and dying for.
The Patriot Act has a sunset, needs constant renewal with the approval of democrats. It is Constitutional and it is sane. Obama seeks more privacy intervention than the original Patriot Act but not a word about that. Moreover liberty, property, time, effort and labor is taken each and every day by government but God forbid that should be compared to slavery. Instead that is compassion. If someone should listen to your phone call to Afghanistan, during wartime, this is somehow interpreted as a constitutional violation, of highest priority, that requires impeachment? That is like eating three pieces of ice cream laden cake washed down by two sodas and then putting sweet and low in your coffee.
Thank you, MLF…..and feel free to “steal” whenever you choose. But somehow I doubt you’ll ever have to resort to my words to make a solid point. Your resume speaks for itself!
)
Wow! You do know Peter Wehner is one of those people who Levin calls a “neo-statist,” right? [Moderator -- theCL was banned for making this scurrilous claim about Mark Levin.] Levin fans promoting neo-statists … the whole world is turned upside down.
I supported going into Iraq, but in reading the responses above, I’m starting to think many believe America is weak. Up through the 1960′s, the foreign policy that conservatives from “Mr. Republican” Robert A. Taft to Barry Goldwater supported, was known as “America First” foreign policy. This is the same policy that Ron Paul advocates today.
Are you all claiming that Islamofascism would overthrow our country if we followed an America First foreign policy today? If so, that’s ridiculous.
Beck is right! McCain (he even admitted it today in an interview about Beck’s remark) is a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive! Read a little history … Teddy Roosevelt/Barack Obama … same thing. I disagree with what he said about Hillary, but that’s besides the point.
“Bailout” McCain wanted to buy-up mortgages, pass cap and trade, service-learning, and a whole host of other progressive/socialist programs. Republican does not equal conservative. And there is no such thing as a lesser evil. There is only evil. Don’t let McCain’s ‘R’ lapel pin confuse you, he’s a progressive to the bone.
And I hate to break it to everyone, but foreign wars are dropping lower and lower on everybody’s priority list. You can thank the criminal economic policies of Bush and Obama for the disaster we’re in. Oh, and send a ‘thank you’ card to the “Maverick” for it all too! (Yeah, who needs an economics intellectual like Ron Paul when you have Bush and McCain.)
It’s statism that’s wrong. So all statists of all stripes should be attacked! Even if they’re “Republicans.” Just say no to statism.
Gee, ya think you could provide a link so we might see the evidence or what you assert and the context of Mark’s alleged comments? How about a direct quote from ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ and the page number? Put up or shut up.
BTW, even if what you say is true, how does that change what Wehner wrote about Beck?
Crickets chirping .. theCL isn’t responding with his source because he can’t. I did not recall Mark ever saying that about Wehner and Mark confirmed that he did not to me by email last night. Well, if his hero (Beck) steals without attribution, why should theCL not lie without shame?
Matt: theCL sending you is all we need to know about you.
Wow, I just found this place (Thanks CL!) There is a profusion of views here.
@ ScottT, You just stated an argument that is often used to discredit the Constitution as written and amended. If we say that the founders are no longer relevant because they lived in a different age, what does that say about the Constitution? Does individual freedom still have a place in our nation? Does the government have the power to manage anything that they wish, and if so, why even keep the Constitution? Maybe some will suggest that I’m splitting hairs, but if we’re going to challenge the legitimacy of the Constitution, are rights unalienable?
Let’s hear from Benjamin Franklin…
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
@ CL, I don’t agree with everything you said, but opposing statism, no matter the source, is key. Tyranny comes in many forms, identifying and fighting it will benefit us all.
Actually, I’ll go along with the dog for the most part, provided he’ll acknowledge that not all Republicans are non-conservative. There are some good ones (Joe Wilson, Paul Ryan, Mike Rogers, to name a few). And I wonder if he agrees with Mark (and Rush) that the way to go-the way to WIN-is to boot the leftist infiltrators out of the GOP.
the dog’s website doesn’t indicate a RuPaul guy, and this post there is painfully true: http://fierydog.com/?p=580
Dr.
I absolutely agree there are conservatives in the GOP. I’m a member of the Republican executive committee here and know some fine examples, but I don’t generally publish that fact because I fancy myself a conservative first and then a little-r republican. My interest is conservatism for America first and party affiliation second.
Back in May I posted about how Meghan McCain and other left wing RINOs should join Specter on the other side of the aisle. The only way we will ever return to a Reaganesque conservative party is by purging the liberals from positions of power. Allowing them to remian is like a doctor saying, “Well, I’ll treat your flu symptoms but we should levae the lung cancer alone to do its thing.”
Yikes…originally tried to post the previous 24 hours ago, but for some reason it didn’t take. Weird…
You RuPaulies are freaks of nature! LOL!
It is interesting to me that after pouring their money into Ron Paul’s campaign last year, the conspiracy theorists among his supporters voted en masse for Obama, the candidate who is currently shredding the Constitution. Ever seeking the last refuge of a scoundrel in their storm-filled minds, those same voters have now flocked to defend Beck.
Wow, I had no idea that foreign wars were “dropping lower and lower on everyone’s priority list”. Guess I have to re-think my Christmas shopping.
Odd though, Al Qaeda does not seem to have dropped foreign wars off their priority list. I guess you’ll just have to set them straight and we can all go home theCL.
As soon as you do that, get back to me and we’ll all go into the bible printing business in Tehran.
Thanks for straightening me out guy.
Matt,
Where in the HELL did I say that the founders of the constitution are “irrelevant”??
Perhaps if you took 30 seconds to pull your head out of your backside & read with a clear set of eyes…..you’d realize that it’s just the OPPOSITE: That the development of nuclear proliforation, technology, transportation & communication are in fact RELEVANT.
DUH!
By your logic (and those of your ilk), it would be just fine to teach college graduate-level engineering or calculus with nothing more than a chalkboard & a piece of chalk.
Good grief, we’d all have to be incinerated in a mushroom cloud for you guys to finally get it.
Of course, it really wouldn’t matter by then, now would it.
You folks are really a piece of work!
With all due respect, dog, all I can say is……thank GOD you represent the minority, and some of our so-called “unconstitutionalities” haved saved many of us from Islamo-facsist attack.
Simple as that.
Scott,
What does suspending habeas corpus for American citizens do that trial and execution cannot?
So we are clear:
I support water boarding, Gitmo, Abu Graib, the detention of any and all foreign nationals as POWs (without Geneva Convention rights for those identified as “unlawful” combatants), and the tapping of international phone calls to and from suspected terrorists. Going further than our government will, I am a proponent of blowing up houses and mosques where combatants are, even if they are using women and children as human shields. Civilian casualties are a tragedy of war. While they should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided to the point that we hamstring our military or put soldiers in harm’s way. After we blew up a few mosques, the Taliban and such would realize we are not trying to wage a “politically correct” war and that using babies as shields will not save them. So, there would be no further point in repeating that tactic. In WW2, we did what we needed to win. In these campaigns, the government is constantly shirking its responsibility to the military in attempt to keep the left wing media from getting any anti-American propaganda by which it can aid our enemies. On top of that, countless traitors with a -D after their name insist on doing everything possible to hinder our military efforts. I support our military and full-blown war that does not bother with PC pretense. Go in, kill the bad guys, kill those with the bad guys if needed, and be done with it.
Imagine if all these modern democrats (neo-socialist traitors) were in Congress in 1945. They would never have allowed Hiroshima or Nagasaki. My position is America and Americans First. My line in the sand is the Constitution. I believe it is just as applicable today as it was in 1942 and 1791. My belief in the Constitution does not mean I believe in helping domestic terrorists. It means I believe in seeing them brought to justice quickly and legally, rather than allowing them to have three halal meals a day at the expense of taxpayers for an indefinite amount of time until liberal lawyers or an anti-American president like Obama can find a legal loophole by which to turn them loose so they can kill Americans.
Sgt Tim,
Acknowledging your ad hominem is not patronizing you. As I have continued to be civil and you have continued to lob insults at me, I thought perhaps that acknowledgement would allow us to move beyond personal digs and linger in the realm of civil, erudite discourse.
As for Ashton Lundeby, I read this article back in April:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867
You are correct that subsequent articles now indicate the PATRIOT Act was not used and I stand corrected.
You have misunderstood my position regarding Hamdi and Padilla. I made absolutely no assertions about their innocence. My point was–and remains–that Americans accused of plotting terrorist attacks against Americans (treason in my estimation), should be tried and executed if found guilty. The Constitution lays out guidelines for trying treason. We have many instances of redacted or sealed cases and these could have been sealed until an appropriate time. Locking up citizens without charging them of crimes will only prevent them from committing those crimes (if they are so inclined) until the next president, congress, or liberal justice decides to release them. Trying and executing them will guarantee they can never carry out a plot. Moreover, I don’t believe the way to fight lawlessness is by violating law. Yes, I support water boarding, Gitmo, and most everything else we have been accused of doing–including Abu Graib, because I do not view them as legal infractions and I do not believe the Constitution applies to foreign nationals. But when it comes to Americans, I believe that no matter the crime, whether it is mugging an old lady or contemplating blowing up a building, the rights our forefathers secured with their blood should remain.
As for Quirin, and these two men: Hamdi was captured overseas, while Padilla was arrested in Chicago. In his dissent during Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Scalia wrote, “The Government argues that our more recent jurisprudence ratifies its indefinite imprisonment of a citizen within the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts. It places primary reliance upon Ex parte Quirin.” In Rumsfeld v Padilla, Rehnquist stated, “the Government contended that the President has authority to detain Padilla militarily pursuant to the Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 1, the congressional AUMF, and this Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin.” This is why I mention Quirin, as it was a mainstay of the government’s argument for detention of US citizens without due process.
Perhaps we can take this out of the PATRIOT Act realm for a moment and ask: would you support the government not charging, but incarcerating people accused of robbery or possession of marijuana? What about the governments of places like New York indefinitely imprisoning people suspected of having a hidden gun?
Finally, why the uproar over the recent DHS report labeling tea party goers, pro-lifers and returning vets as potential terrorist threats?
Attacking America is warfare, not crime. While targeting civilians may also be crimes against humanity, they are acts of unlawful warfare and the Geneva Conventions deliberately left unlawful combatants unprotected by humanity’s laws so to give them the process and legal quarter they are due: none and none. Yet here you are equating terrorism with robbery and possession of marijuana. You do not know the meaning of the word ‘civility.’
Regarding Quirin, it no longer is the prevailing case law.
The DHS abuses are abuses of power, not authority vested in that agency by the Patriot Act. The acts of the actors is the illegality, not the Act.
Update: I missed addressing the issue of gun control. Like state gun control law or not, you falsely equate the lawful detention of those arrested for violating those laws with indefinite detention. Am I wrong? If so, provide the case(s) where someone was indefinitely detained (not arrested) for carrying a concealed weapon.
Sgt Tim,
American citizens waging war against America are different. Under federal law, TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 115:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
So, while it may be warfare as you correctly suggest, we still have “criminal” laws pertaining to treason and the treatment of American citizens who wage war against America.
There was no equation of terrorism with robbery &tc. The question was prefaced with let us step out of one realm into another. It was solely a way of digging deeper into your thoughts on where a line might exist on the suspension of constitutional rights and where you might draw that line. While the suspension of habeas corpus is analogous and can be seen to apply, O:o as D:? does not mean a capital O and D are the same letter.
As for your final paragraph, its brevity opens it to further questions and I want to ensure I am understanding your point correctly. Is your assertion that the document itself is an abuse of power? If so, how? There are other such documents regarding the left. Are those also abuses of power? Isn’t part of DHS’s mission to collect information on terrorist groups in order to better defend America? And what is the danger of having DHS paint a wide swath of Americans as potential terrorists if, as you suggested earlier, PATRIOT would not be used as a political tool when you stated, “I wrote that you are a conspiracy theorist and challenged you to show evidence that Bush 43 employed the Patriot Act against Americans illegally, unfairly, or for a political purpose”?
UPDATE to your UPDATE:
No, there is no false equation. The question was a simple one. Would you support the suspension of habeas corpus for those who might find themselves accused of hiding a gun in cities and states where such is illegal? There is no assertion that this has happened and our liking or disliking such laws bears no merit either.
I’ll try again: provide the case(s) where someone was indefinitely detained (not arrested) for carrying a concealed weapon. And the DHS was not acting under color of law; the Patriot Act gave them no authority to act as they did.
Gee, why don’t they point out where Federal and especially State tax authorities act outside the law and then blame it on the law the way they blame everything, even marginally related to the Patriot Act, not on the individuals who violated the Act but on the Act itself and of course the architects and authors of the Act. (Bush & Cheney). Because some people misapply Constitutional principles don’t blame it on the Bill of Rights.
Sgt Tim,
“I’ll try again: provide the case(s) where someone was indefinitely detained (not arrested) for carrying a concealed weapon”
I’m not sure how much more plain I can state what I have already said. The general nature of hypothetical questions or situations preclude a necessity of evidence. For example, the question, “If you were on Pluto, how much would you weigh?” in no way asserts that you are standing on Pluto. Nor does it suggest that someone else is standing on Pluto or has ever stood on Pluto. It doesn’t even suggest that Pluto is or is not a planet. It is a simple question with a simple answer. My simple question which, is the simplest of all forms because it is a closed question (requiring a yes/no or other definitive, quantitative answer), is “Would you support the suspension of habeas corpus if a state or municipality decided to deny habeas corpus to citizens it thought was hiding a gun?” So we are clear, this does not suggest a state has done this. It is hypothetical and asks only whether or not you would support a state where guns are illegal if it decided to enact such a law. It’s a yes/no question. If you care to elaborate upon your answer, as to why you would or would not support this, I will happily read your reasoning.
You said: “And the DHS was not acting under color of law; the Patriot Act gave them no authority to act as they did.”
My question is not did the PATRIOT Act authorize DHS to do something in particular, but I understand you do not think it did. Ok. Now, back to my original questions, which I will rephrase in light of your response above. I am looking for specifics. What did DHS do that was outside its purview? Isn’t part of the job at DHS to assemble reports on potential terroristic threats? Are all of their reports on potential threats, including those on left wing groups like ELF also outside the color of law? Why or why not? Why do you believe this action is not under the color of law? And for what purpose did DHS act illegally? Finally, why should we care if DHS fashions a document that paints a large portion of Americans as possible national security threats? These are fairly simple and straight forward questions, which are not asking you to delve into the mechanics of law–though I will gladly follow you there should you decide to take it there. Moreso, they are asking you for your opinion on what specifically was illegal and why American patriots such as you and I should care if we fall into one or more of those categories.