Your passion for the ideals we both believe in is admirable, but the reality is that we are in a position where our concern for our national welfare places us in a dilemma. Should we not have the ability to keep a closer eye on domestic Jihadist training camps ( video posted earlier ) or for that matter any radical group with principles that defy the ideals you hold dear? I don't have a problem with that at all because in my mind the people keeping an eye on them aren't the enemy, they are the guys on our side. Do the good guys sometimes make mistakes? Yes. Can they become corrupted? Yes. But the fear mongering over that possibility is in my view much less reasonable than what we know the bad guys actually have done ( like beheading journalists, flying planes into skyscrapers, bombing embassies, bombing or pirating ships ... etc. ). It's not like we don't know it goes on. It isn't hypothetical. Many lives have been lost because of them and it isn't fair to trivialize that. We also know that if our efforts to combat it go too far ( like McCarthyism ) our system will correct itself. So depending on which side of the equation you're on, we're not "surrendering" anything to the bad guys, we're giving ourselves the power to prevent the really bad guys from doing really bad things. That being said we still need to be responsible managing it. Do you have any suggestion on how we can do that without restricting our freedom to protect our nation ( and consequently ourselves )?
You seem to be confusing "our side" with "your side" and even possibly "Big Brother's side" or the "Koch Brothers' side."
It should be clear by now, I am not on your side. I am sure as hell not on the side of the Koch Brothers or any group that wants my unquestioning obedience, or else.
MY side doesn't think a government whistle-blower should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. MY side understands that whistle-blowers and the man in Stonehart's video, "The Program", do not deserve to be coerced and threatened for telling the truth regarding how the Constitution has been negated. MY side also understands that loosely defined "threats" can be found to harass and imprison anyone, even if that person is protecting the Bill of Rights.
It is a conservative myth that warrants take forever to get and that crimes will be committed while we're waiting on the whims of some liberal "activist" judge. The
4th Amendment takes both sides into account: It states that searches must be reasonable, specific and there must be probable cause to warrant a search. Even then, in some cases, a search warrant is often not required. This can include if there is belief that certain harm to others might occur and/or the general public is in danger. It can also be avoided if there is a general consent that destruction of property or evidence is about to occur. Common Law also has the
Presumption of Innocence clause, placing the burden of proof on those who accuse rather than those who deny.
Section 2, Article 3 of the Constitution requires trial by jury in all criminal cases. The
6th Amendment expands upon this even further by requiring a speedy trial, a public trial and an impartial jury. Our
8th Amendment goes on to state that "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The NDAA effectively negates the constitution and the protections afforded to U.S. citizens, first by refusing to be "specific" regarding who and what can be searched or for what crime is suspected, then by suspending
habeas corpus and finally by allowing citizens to be detained until whatever loosely defined "hostilities" have "ended".
By all means, you can pretend that "their side" will always be "your side" and assume they will always have your best interests at heart - and you are welcome to do this while apparently living safely in Canada.
I choose to live in reality and point to how the system has already been abused to silence those who speak out. There is a absolutely nothing that will enable the assumption that this will somehow go no further and will magically end if it is abused, simply because the safe guards to protect against this have been suspended. Absolute trust and blind faith is not in my nature. Having a solid understanding of history and an objective look at systematic abuse by those in power prevents this.
Let me ask you something: When whistle-blowers are harassed if not imprisoned for daring speak the truth, what would prevent those who report on these whistle-blowers (such as the media) from meeting a similar fate? How is this
not designed to keep people submissive to those in power?
This is a war against an informed public. There is only the tiniest of steps between arresting those who speak the truth and arresting those who report it. The "threat to national security or stability" will always be defined by those who need constant "threats" in order to remain in power or get huge defense contracts. It isn't meant to protect the little guy but rather instill perpetual fear and obedience in him while his rights and freedoms are slowly eroded. He won't dare organize, in part because unions or protests could be seen as a "threat to national security or stability." "Stability" requires his unflinching obedience and the inability to question authority.
To answer your question: The U.S. Constitution has many provisions already in place that not only defines what makes a "threat" but also how to gather information and prosecute that threat. It doesn't need to be suspended simply because we're all afraid. The 9/11 Commission Report
specifically stated, "the 9/11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise. Islamic extremists had given plenty of warnings that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers." It went on to say,"During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it 'something very, very, very big.' Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us 'the system was blinking red.'"
Intelligence gathering worked prior to 9/11. Somehow after that, the system broke down. I'm not going to debate if this was just a series of communication errors or something more nefarious but the information was there - and it was there long before we decided to run the Constitution through the shredder.
Democracy requires an informed and educated populace. Blind faith and absolute obedience is therefore the enemy to democracy. I will never blindly assume that anyone who has the power to define who and what constitutes a "threat" while also maintaining the ability to determine when and if that person gets a fair trial will somehow have my best interests at heart. This country exists because a group of brave men chose not to be blindly obedient to a corrupt leader. I haven't forgotten that and I know I'm honoring them whenever I question those who demand unflinching obedience.
