Can Americans be locked up on mere suspicion?

Yes! writes Constitutional expert Rob Natelson, author of The Original Constitution, writing for the blog at the Tenth Amendment Center. Commenting on the National Defense Appropriations Act, he carefully spells out what is appropriate to military law, and what the Framers intended when writing the provision for habeas corpus in the United States Constitution. He concludes that the much-discussed Sections 1021 and 1022 would indeed permit American citizens to be held on mere suspicion of terrorism.
To a section that the spin doctors are trying to persuade us was written to protect ordinary Americans, Mr. Natelson writes:

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

He then goes on to cite four Supreme Court decisions, and explains why none of them get to the heart of the matter. Then there is this, also ballyhooed as protection for the rights of Americans:

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite mCilitary custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.

As we warned Nov. 29 and Dec. 16, vigorous application of this act against Americans will turn skeptics into secessionists. But you don't have to take my word for it. Rob Natelson said it and backed it up.

Copyright law and me ... and you

As many of you know, I am in the process of publishing my book Governing Ourselves. Respecting the copyrights of others has been one of the most challenging tasks I have faced as part of that process, because I have used several brief quotations from copyrighted sources.

Being a first time author, I am learning what is, and is not reasonable. One author and one publisher have been very gracious, and state that my use falls within "fair use" under the Copyright Act, thus no royalty is due them. On the other hand, I requested permission to use a brief quotation from a 1972 interview with Richard Nixon that was published in a newspaper that has been defunct since the 1980s. Another newspaper owns the copyright and wants a $390 royalty for the first 25,000 copies printed. If I knew that I would sell 25,000 copies of the book, that would seem reasonable, but if I only sell a few hundred...! (I have since removed that quotation and replaced it with a story that was posted in this blog about two years ago -- which turned out to be an improvement in content).


Existing copyright law is intended to protect artists and writers from those who would simply copy the work and sell it for themselves. It relies on what I call "passive regulation" (a concept on which I will elaborate in my book) -- you find that someone is stealing your work, you can sue for damages. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) relies on "active regulation," meaning that a corporation can ask the federal government to shut down sites that use copyrighted material. In other words, certain major content providers (such as New York publishers and Hollywood film companies) want to shut down all competition by taking control of the Internet. To give you an idea just how far-reaching this bill is, it seems that the Congressman who introduced the bill was himself a violator by illegally using a copyright image as background on his site (since removed).

In about a month, I will be adding a commercial element to The Ohio Republic (to sell my book, of course). In so doing, I will have to take much greater care about my use of copyrighted material on my site, because it then will be considered "for profit." I understand that, and am preparing for it. However, under SOPA, The Ohio Republic would be strictly limited to the content I generate myself. I could not even link to a copyrighted source, lest that source put me at risk by infringing on someone else's copyright.

My primary purpose in writing Governing Ourselves is to share with the public insights that I have gained over the last twenty years. I admit that I would also like the book to be profitable enough to substantially increase my retirement fund; and appreciate now, more than ever, the importance of protecting the rights of the author. However, I feel that existing law does that well enough. I have no desire to go against the blogger who quotes a couple of paragraphs of my book, as long as that blogger gives me credit for it (and a link to a site that sells it would be nice, too :) ).

Government has an obligation to protect the people from force and fraud. Reasonable copyright protection is a necessary function of our legal system. However, it should not be used to encourage the greedy to trample on the rights of everyone else.

In yesterday's post, I suggested an easy way to contact your Congressman and Senators in opposition to SOPA. If you have not registered your opposition to SOPA yet, please do so now.

We're back -- but keep up the fight

If you did not do so yesterday, please let your Congressmen and Senators know that you oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). An easy way to do this, and comment on other legislation, is to join DownsizeDC (www.downsizedc.org), managed by Jim Babka, a resident of Cuyahoga Falls. The site includes an automated e-mail generator that will direct your message to your federal legislators. Membership is free, and with membership, you will receive e-mail alerts of legislation that affects your liberties, on which you can comment. With each alert, DownsizeDC provides some background information, and suggestions on how you can write your own personalized e-mail message tailored to the issue.

Blunt truth of the day

From Jennifer Smith, political director of the Franklin County Libertarian Party, via Facebook:

Just so that everyone knows what our civil-liberties-stomping president just signed: ANYONE who fits a very broad definition of activist (Tea Partiers and Occupiers, for example) can be swept to Guantánamo Bay by the MILITARY. No trial. No due process. No police. No proof of anything. If you know any Obama supporters, share this story with them. If they STILL support him, then you know they're war mongering, anti-civil rights bigots. Because this is it.

The following article, which Jennifer linked, is to a Politico piece about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 being sent to the White House for signature.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70527.html


The article states that President Obama lifted his veto threat when it became clear that Congress had the votes to override. I am not surprised. Please note (and I am repeating myself): The President's signature to this legislation will provide ample grounds for declaring Ohio's independence (See Trigger #1 on the right sidebar). If we value our freedom at all, we must act to ensure that this provision of law never touch otherwise law-abiding citizens within the State of Ohio. First step: Press our state legislators to NULLIFY Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2012. If this effort fails, then a declaration of independence will be justified.

Update Dec. 16: Another friend of mine on Facebook reports that he struggled for 11 years to obtain U.S. citizenship for his wife, who was born in the Soviet Union. Now he feels that they are no better off than before.

We the sheeple of the United States...

Mike Adams at Natural News reports of a study conducted in the early 1960s, known as the Milgram experiments, which shows that 70% of people will administer painful, even lethal, electrical shocks if told to do so by a researcher. Now this is psychological research, and no one was really harmed. The "shocks" were signals given to an actor to feign pain. The researchers used psychological tricks like warning the subjects that they would ruin the project or do serious harm to the individual if the shocks were not administered as ordered.

The study was replicated in 2008 at the University of California at Santa Clara ... with the same results.

Mr. Adams writes:

For many years, psychologists speculated the original studies must have somehow been flawed. Humans beings couldn't be so cruel and gullible, could they? But now this repeating of the study immediately clobbers any debate on the subject and forces us all to confront the terrible reality: Most human beings of all ages, races, religions, cultural upbringings and professions will actively torture, harm and even kill fellow human beings if ordered to do so. [Emphasis in the original]

Why is this important to understand? Because it explains the sheeple effect that's so dominant in society today. Why do consumers obey apparent authorities so blindly? Why do they do what they're told even when it goes against all common sense and their own ethics?

According to Mr. Adams, we were all raised to be mind slaves:

Think about it: From the very first day you go to kindergarten, you're punished for getting out of line (literally), talking out of place, expressing your own ideas or refusing to follow commands. This psychological brow-beating goes on for thirteen years, and it's enforced by most parents, counselors and other authority figures.

And in most universities, the browbeating continues through the college and graduate school years. Very few of us are really taught to think for ourselves.

He cites a common example of this kind of conditioning, done at Costco and Sam's Club:

[P]eople just wait at the exit for some lame worker to check their receipt and mark it with a pen. People actually line up like cattle even after they paid for their stuff! I just walk out the door with the stuff I paid for, utterly ignoring the silly "receipt checkers" who keep screaming "Sir! Sir! Sir!" What I've learned is that after three or four screams, they just shut up and go back to the line of sheeple. Just slap on a pair of headphones, crank up your iPod and walk right out of the store, folks. Why are you giving up your Constitutional rights and submitting yourself to illegal search and seizure for a cart full of stuff you just paid for? [Emphasis added]

This explains the conundrum faced by libertarians. We want our people to be free, but only 30% of us know that we are not -- and even among that 30%, only about 3% of the population is motivated to do anything about it. Even intelligent people (or myself for that matter) sometimes get caught acting like one of the "sheeple." In everyday situations like the Costco one, it is probably harmless; but we need to heighten our awareness, so that we do not let ourselves be lulled into more harmful invasions of our rights, like the TSA scanners and police ID checks. 

The women's liberation movement realized that the first step to success was to raise the consciousness of the population to how women were being discriminated against. Libertarians need to do the same thing with the general population. I hope this post has been a small contribution in that direction.

Virtual buckeye to The Liberty Voice.

Update Dec. 7: Here is a concurring opinion from Bruce E. Levine at AlterNet. He cites eight reasons why young Americans are not fighting the system. I will refer you to the article to read the details, but here is the list:

1. Fear they cannot repay their student loan debt
2. Misuse of psychiatry and drugs to quell non-compliant behavior
3. Schools that educate for compliance and not democracy
4. "No Child Left Behind," a federal program that bases aid on test scores, which forces teachers to teach to the test, and not helping the child learn how to think for himself
5. Confusing the difference between education and schooling. Young people are taught that disliking school is the same thing as disliking learning.
6. Normalization of surveillance -- beginning at home as parents monitor their children's computers and social networking pages.
7. Television -- for sixty years, the opiate of the people
8. Fundamentalist religion and "fundamentalist consumerism," which destroy self-reliance and foster self-absorption.

Speedbump on the road to tyranny

In the interest of accuracy and full disclosure, I need to report that the following amendment to the National Defense Appropriations bill (S. 1867) was approved Dec. 1 by a vote of 99-1:

SA 1456. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

   On p. 360, between lines 21 and 22 [Section 1032], insert the following:

   (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The lone dissenter was Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). This is good news, but we need to remain vigilant. My post yesterday remains true enough. Still makes me want to rethink going to Canada next summer...

A lesson from history

Reichstag fire

Compare the following account in Conservapedia with the logic behind Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations bill, which we discussed Tuesday. I found the comparison rather chilling:

On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag in Berlin was destroyed in a fire that had plainly been deliberately set. Exactly who set the fire remains a question never fully resolved. Most contemporary observers both in and outside of Germany blamed and still blame the Nazis themselves, though [author William] Shirer admits in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that “The whole truth about the Reichstag Fire will probably never be known...”

9-11

Didn't all this hysteria over terrorism start with 9-11? Like the Reichstag fire, the whole truth of how the World Trade Center was destroyed will probably never be known.* In response, Congress passed several acts designed to restrict the freedom of the American people, notably the USA PATRIOT Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which makes it possible for the federal government to create a secret police apparatus), the REAL ID Act, and those Transportation Security Administration gropers and scanners.

The article continues:

A day later a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state” was passed:

“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”  [Does the part in italics sound familiar?]

Thus, the first taste of Nazi state terror was rendered “legal,” as over the next week Brownshirts took into “protective custody” several thousand Communist officials and many Social Democrats and liberals. These prisoners, often snatched from their homes and off the streets, were loaded onto trucks and carried off to SA barracks and hastily set up prisons where many of them were held, tortured and killed without the formality of a hearing or trial. The rationale for these drastic measures, Hitler’s government insisted, was the dire threat posed by the communist menace... 

Not to be alarmist, but if the Defense Appropriations bill stands, our soldiers will be able to do exactly the same thing, and not just to suspected al-Qaeda terrorists! And then there are those empty FEMA camps... Continuing in Conservapedia:

“The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…it was ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.” 

Compare this paragraph with Senator Lindsay Graham's statement about Al-Qaeda on our shores in the Defense Appropriations bill debate (from The Hill):

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that al Qaeda members are enemy combatants and should be held and prosecuted by the military. He and fellow Republicans have been critical of reading terror suspects Miranda rights.

“When they say, ‘I want a lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up,’ ” Graham said. “ ‘You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant, and we’re going to talk to you about why you joined al Qaeda.’ ”

At this point, the democratic Weimar Republic became Adolf Hitler's totalitarian Third Reich. Let me suggest that we may have a point of comparison here with a statement of President Obama's (July 27):

[The President] admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way.

The Third Reich built a system that enriched Germany's largest industrialists at the expense of everyone else. We call that system Fascism. In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act effectively completes Step 10 (to suspend the rule of law). The only remaining step is Step 9, to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and I expect that shoe to drop very shortly. We are already close to that, as evidenced by this Washington Times interview April 6 (which I reported a month later) and this Homeland Security advisory dated April 7, 2009.

When I was a student at Ohio Northern University, I lived on the west end of a large open space on campus. I could see the sunrise (or a moment or two after, because of buildings and trees in the distance). I once had a horrific dream where I saw the sun rise, on which was emblazoned a black swastika. In the midst of the Red menace when I went there, that would have seemed ridiculous; but it convinced me then that Fascism would be a greater threat to this country than Communism ever was.

This is one dream that I do not want to come true.

(Source of the Reichstag fire account: William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, volume II)

* Update 12/2: I have encountered some skepticism about this claim, because it suggests that I am a so-called "Truther". There is considerable evidence gathered by professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts that the World Trade Center could not have fallen the way it did solely from the planes crashing themselves through the buildings. The collapse of each building, in their professional opinion, and from films I have seen of controlled demolitions, suggest that the crash was supplemented by a controlled demolition. See the 911 Architects and Engineers for Truth site for this evidence. Also see my Dec. 2 post.

Next steps

In yesterday's post, I wrote that enactment of the defense appropriations act (S.1867) without the Udall (or Paul) Amendment would be, in my opinion, grounds for pressing for independence. I am not being rash. I have been thinking about this for several years.

However, that time is not quite yet. To become law, S.1867 has to go through one or two more steps. The first is, to be signed or vetoed by the President. The President has stated that he would veto the bill if the offending sections were not removed. To sign the bill after that statement would be an act of perfidy unrivaled in the history of the Republic, which only eleven years ago would have provided sufficient grounds for impeachment. However, with this President, we cannot rule out that possibility.

The second possibility, which offers a slender thread of hope, is that the President will veto it. To overturn the veto requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives would easily pass the bill again; but to override the veto, the Senate is six votes short.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks today, "What if the Constitution no longer applied?" What is to be done?

The prudent course of action would appear to be, continue unless and until the bill is enacted; and if it is, to determine the most effective course of action moving forward. It may be necessary to stop this blog for a time, to ensure that my actions do not defeat my purpose; which is, and always has been, to restore the liberties of our Founding Fathers to the people of Ohio.

In these times, you cannot be a patriot and a coward at the same time.So choose wisely, dear reader. Remember from history the Nazi concentration camps, which housed not only Jews, but many others, including "Aryan" dissidents. Remember the Soviet gulags. Remember the "tiger cages" of Vietnam. Remember how men disappeared and died in Argentina in the days of Juan Perón. We have heard rumors of Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) concentration camps* being erected for those who commit so-called "domestic terrorism." Sen. Rand Paul yesterday noted that people who could be suspected for "domestic terrorism" under existing law include those with missing fingers, those who store guns and ammunition, and those with more than a seven-day food supply in their homes. If the FBI and the military are given free rein to pick up American citizens on the slightest suspicion, those concentration camps (some built by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, by the way) will become reality.

Without liberty, there is no true prosperity and no purpose in life. However, as we have often quoted Thomas Jefferson in this space, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Are you prepared to give yours, to ensure the freedom of your children and grandchildren?

* I have no way of knowing whether everything in this link is factual; however, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial in the middle of the link is convincing.

The last straw

Speaking of Gestapo tactics, now come Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) to sneak into a defense appropriation bill provisions that potentially would enable the military to enter the home of any American citizen on American soil and detain them indefinitely without any warrant or trial. The bill (S. 1867, specifically sections 1031-1032) is justified on the grounds that it will give the military the flexibility and tools it needs to combat al-Qaeda. Technically, the executive would be given discretion as to whether a specified terrorism suspect should be tried in the civilian courts or a military tribunal.

It has been opposed by (among others) Sens. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado). Sen. Udall has introduced an amendment to remove sections 1031-1032, which would conform the bill to customary American values. President Obama, to his credit, is threatening to veto the bill if the two sections are included.* The White House issued this statement giving the President's objections:

Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

I would have liked it better if the President could say "Fourth Amendment," but I suppose that is asking too much.

Dr. Andrew Bosworth, writing for the Canadian think tank Global Research, has done an extensive analysis of the bill, which is reproduced in the Infowars.com website. In an article aptly titled "Treason from Within," Dr. Bosworth cites the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which an attempt was made to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant:

… it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

Dr. Bosworth concludes:

The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.

This was the design all along.

The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.

The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”

The bill’s provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charge or trial, represents nothing short of an declaration of war by the federal government on the American people.

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I will add a couple of comments:

If there is danger from terrorism (and there may well be), it is because we have sent our military abroad, who have killed innocent civilians in "collateral damage." As one active-duty soldier put it, "There is no flag large enough to cover... the shame of killing innocent people" (in Pakistan, for example). Further restricting our liberties only erodes the moral standing this country once had with the world -- and for that matter, with its own people.

If this bill is enacted without the Udall Amendment, I will consider it to execute both Triggers 1 and 2 to Ohio independence (see right panel), and will thereupon press for independence in earnest.

Even if a soldier knocks down the door of my home and takes me.

Update 9 pm: The Washington Times reports that the Senate voted 61-37 to approve the bill, including Sections 1031-1032. Senators Rand Paul and Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) were the only Republicans voting against the bill because of the language. Forty-four Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent voted in favor. The Constitution is dead. Heaven help us all.

Virtual buckeyes to Charlie Earl and Jason Rink.

* Unless Sen. Levin is right, and the President was conveniently posturing against a position he originally pressed for.

Gestapo tactics

Henry D'Andrea at the Politicons website cites an Atlanta Business Chronicle article about a Waco, Georgia, crane operator who has put the following sign on his trucks:

When asked why the signs are there, Bill Looman, owner of U. S. Cranes, LLC, said, "Can't afford it." He was interviewed by the FBI following a tip that he was a "threat to national security." It was also referred to the Secret Service. However, the Secret Service's reaction was interesting:

“The Secret Service left here, they were in a good mood and laughing,” said Looman, who added he just spent 10 years in the Marine Corps. “I got the feeling they thought it was kind of ridiculous, and a waste of their time.”

As Mr. D'Andrea wrote, apparently liberal tolerance only flows one way.

The slippery slope toward tyranny is getting icy.

We just abolished the rule of law

Eric Peters at LewRockwell.com demonstrates how, in the execution of Anwar al-Auluqi, an American citizen, we have just allowed our President to execute any of us -- at will.

America has not been a “country of laws, not men” for many years but now it’s official. The state’s fangs have been bared. Within living memory, presidents and congresscretins were at least nominally bound by law. They paid lip service to it and if caught transgressing, there was usually embarrassment if not punishment – and for awhile, the abuse would stop or at least be dialed back a little bit.

No more.

Now, not even a letter d’ cachet is required. All that is required is for the eye of Obama (or that of his successor to the purple) to fall upon you. Improbable, you say? Idiot, sez me.

Idiot, because you – if you believe you’re safe – believe that the laws of human nature do not apply to our Great Leaders, merely to Great Leaders of other countries, who are not spayshull like us. Idiot, because – if you believe you are secure – you believe that precedents don’t set policy. That once established they are always and inevitably expanded upon. That once any individual is subject to arbitrary state terror any of us may be subjected to arbitrary state terror – and the only thing holding it back (for the moment) is that the eye of Obama has not (yet) fallen upon you and yours.

No more is there the restraint of procedure, of the submission of evidence to a jury in open proceedings, to weigh against the charges leveled. Indeed, charges are no longer required – let alone a finding of guilt based upon evidence. Merely:

Ah ahm the decider! And ah have deecided!

Oh, surely, it is now enunciated in a more polished and highbrow manner by the current Don. But it is the same thing, essentially. I decide. From Lincoln to Hitler to Bush II to The Constitutional Scholar: Fuhrerprinzip. Power flows from on high, incarnated in the person of the leader.

I am being hysterical you say?

Yes, I am. Because I see where this is headed and what it will come to mean for all of us, eventually – or for any of us, that is, who might find ourselves described as “domestic extremists” for disbelieving in the principles of IngSoc and expressing criticism of the same.

In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act has completed Step 7 (Target key individuals). The Establishment already controls the press (Step 8), which leaves only Steps 9 and 10: to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and to suspend the rule of law.

Mr. Peters and I then quote the dissident German pastor Martin Niemöller's famous comment about how Germans allowed the Third Reich to be established. It is worth reproducing here:

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Perhaps the more contemporary version will be:

First they came for the Arabs, and I did not speak out because I was not an Arab.
Then they came for the gun owners, and I did not speak out because I did not own a gun..
Then they came for the Tea Partiers, and I did not speak out because I was not a Tea Partier.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Let me make one final comment that will surely offend some people, but I am sure it is the truth: Anyone who thinks that we will change course by electing anyone other than Ron Paul as President or by electing a Republican Congress is a fool. And I am not totally convinced that electing Ron Paul will do anything except slow it down a bit, since he would still have to contend with that Congress.

There is no hope, if we do not take responsibility ourselves. We must build up our state government to resist the tyranny to come, first by passing measures like Issue 3 against forced health care; then honest money, and if necessary, secession.

Virtual buckeye to Charles Earl.

Update 10/3: Paul Craig Roberts gives a concurring opinion at LewRockwell.com: In his article, "The Day America Died," he shows how the federal government and the military have been brutalized, with the support of many "patriotic" Americans who fear terrorism so much that they are willing to trash the very document that protects them. His conclusion:

Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government’s "righteous intent" in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as "it doesn’t serve our interests." 
 
Voting has no effect. President "Change" is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is "the most disastrous president in our history." Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him.

To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country. The only future for Americans is a nightmare.

As I expressed above, I remain a bit more hopeful than he is that the situation can be changed. But not much. I could leave -- Canada is not that far away -- but emigration does nothing to weaken the tyrant.

Federal judge rules Patriot Act unconstitutional

MS-NBC, not usually noted for being a "wingnut right-wing" news source, reports that a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been ruled unconstitutional by District Court Judge Ann Aiken. The Foreign Surveillance Act allowed searches without warrant in cases where the FBI was gathering intelligence on foreign citizens. The USA PATRIOT Act extended the FBI's ability to conduct secret searches in terrorism investigations on U.S. citizens.

In this case, Portland, Oregon, attorney Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were found on an object in a blown up subway car in the 2004 Madrid bombing. The evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause, but prosecution was permitted under the provisions of the act.

  

It goes without saying that the federal government will appeal, but this, at least is another small victory for the Constitution at a time when it appears to be under siege.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Yarbrough.

Update on the IHOP raids

I posted a report from the Toledo Blade Sept. 20 of a raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security on several International House of Pancakes restaurants in northwestern Ohio and Indiana, in which many boxes of records were seized.

The franchisees owning the restaurants are Jordanian-Americans. While the FBI has refused to provide any information, there appears to be some suspicion of terrorist activity within subsequent stories published by the Blade. Here is the latest, from Sept. 22.

Breaking news: Federal agents raid pancake restaurants

The Toledo Blade reports today (it is a developing story) that the FBI, the Customs Enforcement agency, and local police have raided six International House of Pancakes restaurants in Ohio for suspected terrorist activity. Agents closed each restaurant to the public and loaded white boxes into unmarked vans for investigation. I will report more as it becomes apparent unless it prominently appears in the mainstream media.

Virtual buckeyes to Gabe McGranahan and the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.

9-11

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

There is only so much one can say on 9-11, so this will probably be my last post on the subject, unless something new emerges that calls for comment.

The most appropriate way to observe 9-11 is to make it a day:

• To remember the 3,100 people who died in the attacks.
• To thank the first responders in New York and Washington for risking their lives to save so many others, and to bring closure to the families of those who perished.
• To remind ourselves of the threat of terrorism, at least as long as we maintain a military presence in the far reaches of the globe. Many people scoff at the idea of "Fortress America" -- keeping our troops entirely (or almost entirely) within our own borders; but no military presence abroad can really respect the sovereignty of other nations. Those who doubt this should consider how we would react if foreign troops were stationed on our soil. Justifying our presence abroad in the face of the Golden Rule (for example, by justifying it as "American exceptionalism") is nothing more than pure arrogance on our part. Our presence abroad provides terrorists with the motivation to attack us. We have no moral obligation to protect any country except our own. Europe is (or should be) perfectly capable of defending Europe. Israel and South Korea can likewise defend themselves against any likely attackers. The simplest and most effective antidote to terrorism is to remove their motivation to attack us.
• To mourn for the lost liberty that we allowed to occur, in the false belief that it was necessary to preserve our national security. Americans need to remember that the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional protections of habeas corpus*, and against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws** are absolutes. The best security for Americans is to jealously guard our liberties from our own governments, which by their nature will attack personal liberties for their convenience, or to protect favored interests.

As in past years, I refuse to be drawn into the "truther" arguments. I am not saying that the truthers are wrong -- I am saying that evidence to prove the truth either does not exist, or will remain hidden until this country experiences a revoluton, or years after most of us are dead.

Two of our Founding Fathers have given us the admonitions we most need to heed whenever we remember 9-11:

"Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty"

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Americans lost their liberty because the people were not vigilant; and the experience of the last ten years should show us why we are today neither free nor safe.

* Habeas corpus is the legal principle that one should not be detained by the state, except according to law -- specifically, pursuant to a court order.

** Definitions and examples of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (scroll down just past the sentence in bold).

Prophecy of the decade

Ron Paul predicting the present from his speeches, 1998-2002. I agree with the conclusion, we should elect Ron Paul in 2012 -- if it won't already be too late...

I may be on a list as a domestic terrorist

... according to the way law enforcement officials are trained by Homeland Security. I personally am not much into survivalism, but this particular post from SurvivalBlog.com contains useful information that every liberty activist should know. The author, James Wesley Rawles, is a law enforcement officer who has been a part of many of these training sessions over 18 years. Here is what he says of DHS training and those of us who are defending the Constitution:

Another training session I attended two years ago discussed the [dangers] of people who have strong views of the U.S. Constitution.  One trainer made the statement that “these people actually believe the Second Amendment gives them the personal right to own a gun.”  Of course, the trainer failed to mention that our Founding Fathers, as well as recent Supreme Court rulings, verify this view as being completely accurate.  The obvious attempt here was to suggest to officers that the Second Amendment does not apply to individual gun ownership and to be suspicious of anyone who holds such a view.  It was also stressed to be cautious of anyone who quotes the Constitution and even worse, actually possesses a copy of this radical document.  Incredibly, in the United States of America today belief in our founding legal principles is now grounds for being labeled a domestic terrorism.  Imagine how they would respond to some of the known statements of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry or George Mason concerning the issue of individual liberty and limited government.  It is true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Pay particular attention to their logic: If you believe in the Constitution and buy ammunition, therefore, you celebrate Hitler's birthday.

One rule I underline -- Never be rude to the police. Stand your ground, but politely. If the misinformed run into enough of us who follow this one rule, they may begin to question their indoctrinators trainers. Two other strong recommendations from the author: Make sure your candidates for county sheriff understand the Constitution, and cultivate friendships with law enforcement officers.

Indiana state senator and state Libertarian Party victimized by e-mail hoax

Update Mar. 24: The Indiana Libertarian Party learned late yesterday that the e-mail purportedly sent by a state senator demanding that the Libertarian Party to keep postings about gay marriage to a minimum was a hoax. The Indiana Libertarian and Republican Parties are co-operating in the investigation. I have removed the e-mail (there being no point to keeping it up), but am retaining my comments at the end.


***

Gay marriage is a political issue for two reasons: (1) because the state decided that it wants to regulate marriage through the issuance of a license, and (2) because our health care benefits are structured around marriage and families. If the government got out of the licensing business (or made it neutral, as in "whatever is is what it is") and we returned to a free market in health care, the issue would go away on its own.

I do not like the idea of gay marriage myself, but I would rather see religious organizations working to persuade people of its immorality, than to have its existence or non-existence dictated by the state.

Wisconsin GOP state senators get death threat

Update Mar. 14: This is not a hoax. The Waukesha (WI) Patch reports that the Wisconsin Department of Justice has located the woman responsible for the e-mail quoted below. The suspect also sent a death threat to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The department has released no further information. 

Unionist anger against the collective bargaining bill remains unabated in the last few days. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that up to 100,000 demonstrators appeared in Madison Saturday, and that phone banks have been set up to force recall of State Senators who voted in favor of the bill. Organizers also hope to force a recall of Gov. Walker. [Note: The recall is not a legal option in Ohio].



I hope this is a hoax; but even if it is a hoax, the perpetrator should be brought to justice for what we in Ohio would call "aggravated menacing."

Reporter Charlie Sykes posted this in the blog of radio station WTMJ in Milwaukee. Mr. Sykes states that the e-mail was signed, but that he was withholding the name pending the police investigation. The e-mail is quoted in full, and is not for the fainthearted. The spelling and grammar were in the original.

From: XXXX

Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM

To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen

Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.

We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.

This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

I am not suggesting that anyone is doing this in Ohio, but obviously, we are in a time when we need to be aware of what is going on.

Update Mar. 11: The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Wisconsin Department of Justice is investigating the death threats. Its report essentially confirms what was stated above. Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald told the Sun-Times that a protester "was arrested this week for trespassing at his Dodge County home after she walked onto his porch and banged on the window."

How the feds claim authority for indefinite detention

A commenter sent me a personal e-mail asking a question about "If this isn't unconstitutional, nothing is" from yesterday. He asked, 

I'm assuming this is referring to Executive Order 13567. I didn't read it thoroughly, but I wasn't able to find the section that claims this right on first scan.

Can you comment on which section of Executive Order 13567 claims this right?

I studied the Executive Order, and was stumped too. I consider Andrew Napolitano to be a highly trustworthy source, and was surprised that he came up with this without further backup. I did some further research. The fact is, this assertion is not new to this Executive Order. Here is how I answered the commenter:

The answer in Executive Order 13567 isn't obvious. Section 2 holds that continued detention is warranted if it is necessary "to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States." There is no independent assessment as to what a "significant threat" is. Practically anything the President has wanted to do in this area since 1945 can be, and has been, justified on the basis of "national security."

The second warning comes from section 1(b), which that this is a "discretionary process of review" that "does not affect the scope of detention authority under present law."  The periodic review process strikes me as being the reverse of a show trial. It pretends to offer a way for the detainee to be released, but a careful reading of section 3 in light of the other two sections suggests to me that it does no such thing. It's a completely non-binding review.

The "scope of detention under present law" where it applies to foreign nationals, is vast. The issue of detention after acquittal arose in an article by Joan McCarter for The Daily Kos (not exactly a right-wing publication), entitled "Presidential Post-Acquittal Detention Power." Quoting testimony from the Senate Armed Services Committee July 7, 2009, Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson gave this reply to a question by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida):

Martinez looked surprised. "So the prosecution is moot?" he asked.

"No, no, not in my judgment," Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel "determines this person is a security threat" and "for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone" under "law of war authority" as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority "we have the authority in the first place."

Continued detention without trial, or after acquittal, is an egregious violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Questions: If we do not uphold our own Constitution, how can we say that we stand for freedom under the rule of law? And if we cannot say that we stand for freedom under the rule of law, by what moral authority are we conducting this so-called "War on Terror"?