Did Obama Just Kill the 4th Amendment?

On December 31 of 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The law gives authority to the president to order the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without official charge or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist or linked to a terrorist organization.

Since then, many have described the law as -

  • …one of the most controversial bills into law since the Patriot Act
  • This is treason on parade …
  • Americans really don’t seem to really want Habeas Corpus anymore…
  • Obama signs Martial Law bill …
  • So This is How Liberty Dies

There are two elements to this worth mentioning.

First, the liberties and rights described by the COTUS creates the dichotomy between our moral obligation to protect life and the desire to protect those liberties and rights. These two values are at odds with one another. Without the former there is no latter. To borrow the phrase, it’s a question of whether we “piss on the Constitution”, or piss on life.

Second, the hyperbole should be self-evident. As yet, there is no evidence to suggest that we are about to begin a campaign to summarily round up citizens in the dark of night and throw them into some form of political labor camp. Yes, there is a threat, but I don’t see this country doing that to itself and to do so would mean we’ve actually learned nothing from the lessons given by Hitler, the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor and our civil rights movement. It will be a test for this nation and will shed some light on the kind of people we are. It will also divide. On the one hand there will be those who believe we will be able to balance these opposing beliefs. On the other, there will be those who don’t.

This on-going argument has a simple resolution which I suspect will soon present itself. This question of whether we have the right to protect the lives of innocents by detaining terrorists intent of robbing us of our perceived liberties and freedoms will be put before the SCOTUS. If the court upholds this law in its current form, the test for this country begins.

Regardless of the outcome the forces in our gov’t (We the People) will and should continue to influence the likelihood of its existence. In other words, the current state of the law represents a point along the line of its existence and there are sufficient reasons to believe its existence will not be a permanent one.

(There is a bit of irony in the fact that McCain, a former POW who suffered at the hands of his captors is a proponent of this law. There is little doubt there is anyone more wary than he and I doubt he is throwing caution into the wind.)

At the end of the day, this is really only a distraction, drawing our attention away from the reason the bill was signed into law to brave the criticisms created by its affront to our Constitution. It should cause you to think about how we are going to defeat those reasons before it really gets ugly.

About these ads
  1. Human nature and motives do not change. There was plenty of history and precedence to warn Germans of their trend back in the 30′s. Many saw it, but not enough in power to make a difference. There always is a psycological block and disposition that says, “that couldn’t happen here.” So, the door remains open.

    Many conservatives are not conservative at all beyond “don’t tax my money”, just nationalistic. This makes them just as naive as a liberal; just so long as their abusers are wrapped in a Uniform of their government.

    “”Where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people.” Where they ban ideas, they will ban people. Nah… It couldn’t happen here, humans are so different now, that history is irrelevant.

  2. Interestingly, too Hitler thought he could legislate a Utopia. The plethora of regulations lead to massive small business failures and a few select businesses that could be tightly controlled and taxed by the govt. Hitler didn’t believe people should own guns; so used the registrations to confiscate them. He also grappled with hyperinflation. He had no compunction unfairly silencing the opposition.

    Well, he was German and didn’t ship out his industry–two striking differences.

      • Ben
      • January 4th, 2012

      With the Obambastic’s new Storm Trooper Authorization Act of 2012 now law, if the left was a little irate over Bush’s Patriot Act, it would logically mean they are absolutely livid over this new one, right?

      Having said that, it does make one think about the mindset of any adversary of America. It begins with the understanding that the rest of the world, including those terrorists types (overt state operatives) have already seen how America is unwilling to take care of the problem militarily, save for the low hanging fruit i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Arguable, I believe they see America as being unwilling to take the bull by the horns because it’s “too messy”. So does your average American. Difficult to argue is that our lack of political will and support prevent us from solving the problem. So, what’s a gov’t to do?

      Simple, and this part is what doesn’t escape our adversaries. Turn on your populace. They (our gov’t and our adversaries) know that If we can’t solve it diplomatically and militarily, we will impose controls onto the civilian sector to protect them from. In a sense, we’ve been invaded (psychologically) and our defense focuses on domestic born terrorism rather than our true enemy. Our gov’t can now say “See? We are protecting you.”

      Trouble is, this is now the new norm and it will stay that way until we demand from our gov’t that they (and we) bite the bullet and do what is necessary to end it once and for all. We need to establish a new norm, Norm, and if we don’t it’s going to get much uglier. This should be telling us that Obama’s NDAA is really a distraction and we’re focusing on the wrong thing.

  3. I simply find it amazing how Democrats are hell bent on protecting our freedoms when they are out of power, but as soon as they get any level of power they want absolute control.

    The founding fathers knew something this generation and especially Progressive/liberals don’t understand. They understood the need to limit your own power because you will not always be in control. If you grab power today tomorrow it will be used against you. Maybe not by the current herd of timid Republicans but maybe by a more aggressive enemy in the future.

  4. http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2011/12/15/fascism-for-dummies.html

    Facism for Dummies, 101

    To me, this clearly crosses party lines. Kinda like a concert, one side pushes the military (where most dollars leave the country.), and the other pushes for central control to solve problems they create.

  5. I would point out for the ‘dummies’ that the new state religion is currently Ecology. (bullet point 8)

    Also for the dummies, disdain for higher learning and the arts are no longer needed if you can gain control through grants.

    Bullet point 5, has probably been inverted in our case, as there is now reverse discrimination. However, this could be seen as a dual headed spear, with the inverse and traditional. The result is the same, expanding powers of the government over the people.

    In our country, not only is there national fervor to gain a traditional fascist supplanting of our Constitution, but they use Political Party loyalties to achieve the same.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply or add your opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers

%d bloggers like this: