Be Careful Whose Rights You Trample Upon

If you believe in the Constitution and civil liberties and are afraid of NDAA and the Presidential finding that allows the President to kill American citizens without a trial "if they pose a danger to the country", the poll that the Hill recently conducted should chill you to the bone. Nearly one third of those polled said it was OK to kill its citizens without due process and over four in ten said it was OK to kill those citizens designated as "terrorists."

Let us make one thing clear, we do not favor coddling terrorists or potential terrorists, however, we need to make sure we know who is designating whom. Too often we hear and see the word "terrorist" or "domestic terrorist" attached to people like Tea Party members, returning servicemen, or those who do not agree with the Administration. These are not in our definition. Nor are those who talk a big story but do not do anything as was the 2010 case against the Hutaree group in Michigan. This case ultimately lead to their acquittal on the major charges in 2012. Two of the leaders did plead to minor weapons charges but a far distant result than what the government wanted.

When the government goes after you, it is a fight for your life (and in the most recent past, it could mean that your life is literally on the line). It will cost  millions and like in the above case, it will be a long period of time even if the Feds really don't have anything on you. Do you really want them to be able to kill you with such flimsy information?

NO government agency head should be able to say that "XYZ is a domestic terrorist" and that be the necessary ingredient for a "kill" order to a drone or hit team. If we have degraded our  justice system that far, we are a third world country! The thought that anyone can conduct a hit against an American citizen without having to go through some legal process is unthinkable and very scary.

Any American citizen (whether living in the US or abroad) should have the right to trial, the right to face his accusers and the right to freedom of speech. When these rights go away, ALL of our freedoms go away. Yes, we know that sometimes the people we support are detestable pieces of pond scum, however, once you take away their rights, ours also goes away.

As we saw in the Hutaree situation, the government is not always right and we should be very cautious when giving that authority to bureaucrats regardless of the public approval of such actions. What would have happenned if a "kill" order had been ordered against the Hutaree group. Where would their families have gone to seek justice?

Conservative Tom

More on the Hutaree trial and acquittal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?_r=0

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0327/Hutaree-militia-acquitted-of-plot-to-foment-revolution

Poll: Obama And Bush Share Poor Civil Liberties Record

February 12, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

UPI

President Barack Obama has disappointed some on civil liberties.

On civil liberties, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. A majority of Americans believe that President Barack Obama’s record balancing national security with civil liberty is about the same or worse than that of President George W. Bush.

According to a poll conducted by The Hill, 37 percent of voters believe that Obama is a worse civil liberties President than Bush was and 15 percent say the two are “about the same.” About one in five people identifying themselves as Democrats said the current President has failed to improve civil rights. Twenty-three percent of people self-identified as “liberals” shared a similar view.

The poll comes on the heels of a Justice Department leak of a white paper which outlines the Administration’s justification of acting as judge, jury and executioner against Americans deemed to be “imminent threats.”

The Hill poll found that 31 percent of respondents believe the government should not be able to kill its own citizens without due process, 41 percent said the government should have the right to kill citizens deemed terrorists.

A recent analysis by The New York Times suggests that the President is spared criticism that was once heaped upon Bush because he is a Democrat:  “For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.”