This country is in a very dark place.

Anyone who now still jeers at the term "police state" isn't worth talking to. The cowards in the Senate who voted for this obscene legislation are criminal. Too bad they're not the ones threatened with being hauled off to jail. But then they don't challenge authority. Nobody who doesn't seriously challenge authority need be concerned by laws that target The Other.

I'd say people need to brush up on their Martin Niemöller, but why bother.

In my neighborhood, the cops are arresting Al Qaeda perpetrators and sympathizers daily. It is not uncommon to see DHS vans, sirens blaring, screaming up and down the street, and usually in the not far distance, I can see smoke rising.

It's been this way, and getting worse since 9/11.

I don't know how else we can achieve our victory against the extremists that have brought the fight into this country.

In addition to the violence, we have all seen how these cases choking resources and clogging our courtrooms.

I am surprised to see you write that these actions of the Congress are unnecessary.

Why else might they be doing this then?

Actually, Amy, I thought the title of your post said it all. I remember this (and if your spam filter kicks me again, I'm going to be pissed) incident which you shared on your blog once.

Yeah, he's a scumbag, hate-mongering, homophobic, unChristian son-of-a-Crid, but he has the right not to be brutalized by the police. The lack of sympathy for this sick fuck is understandable, but it's when his rights are violated that we have to protest the most vehemently. Otherwise, law enforcement now has the foot in the door to do this to the people we do like...or even to us.

Jerry, they're arresting al Qaeda sympathizers and perpetrators in your neighborhood daily? And this has been going on since 9/11? Where the hell is your neighborhood? Kabul? Seriously, how many al Qaeda cells could their possibly be in your neighborhood?

I call bullshit on Jerry. DHS vans screaming up and down the street? Smoke rising in the distance? Bullshit. You don't need to give your address Jerry, but just tell us what city you live in so we can research the number of cases "clogging" your courts. I live in a fairly large metro area with a large contingent of muslim immigrants. I have never even seen a DHS van, let alone one with sirens blaring.

This is another ridiculous trampling of our constitutional rights in the name of "national security".

Just wait till this gets combined with a campaign to have people report things they think are suspicious.. Or the campaign to

Or the campaign to not go after people whose characteristics, resembe those who are terrorists. In the name of racial profiling.
oops already happening.

Or the campaign to have terrorists redefined to not resemble those terrorists who have actually attacked the US. oops already happening.

How long before terrorist becomes redefined to be members of the other political party. oops

Joe J.,

You just did an apt variation of Martin Niemöller's "First they came...". I know it's tiresome and oft ignored, but I will never understand why. And, no, this isn't a Godwin moment.

On U.S. soil even foreign nationals have a right to due process or we are just pissing on our Constitution. Leave it to Congress to want to do just that.

Thanks, Amy. I drew a blank on the capital of Afghanistan, but it wasn't hard to look up. But I do have to admit, that was an easy one to spot.

And I do agree that you are blessed with a high quality of blog commenters. I probably learn more from Conan and Cousin Dave than I do from an entire month of watching the news. To say nothing of the strong opinions -- even if I don't agree -- of rather vehement posters like Brian, Momof4, etc. It's nice to hear clear and articulate opinions of the opposition.

I am surprised to see you write that these actions of the Congress are unnecessary.

Why else might they be doing this then?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is because we are coming up on an election season, and they don't want to appear soft on crime/terrorism. And Imaginary Purple Cookie Monster in the Sky knows, they aren't going to jeopardize their pension/cush job over something as silly as someone's Constitutional Rights.

Oh, erm, ignore my post in the other thread, I see you're on it.

I thought Jerry was being sarcastic or joking.

I thought Jerry was doing satire a la Jonathan Swift.

dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and ... satire.

(Also hyperbole)

(I had a comment kicked into the spam bucket that discussed a method to use such policies to our own advantage by ridding ourselves of nuisance neighbors with just a few phonecalls and a firecracker or two.)

Ariel, No I didn't, I was pointing out how the anti terrorist laws can and possibly are being twisted to become a political weapon.
If it were truely an analogy of "First they came for" then by now we would have no Muslims in the USA, and friends of Bill Ayers would have been arrested, since they are actually associated with a known terrorist bomber.

It's like the Rockefeller drug laws - an overreaction to a problem that takes, what, half a century to get corrected if it ever does.

Meanwhile, those caught up in the net rot in prison.

I get the difference between criminals and enemy combatants in war, but this war is just different. We aren't dealing with the organized army of a recognized nation, so it seems that we need a third category and a well-reasoned means of dealing with people who fall into that category. I'm not sure what the answer is, but in ten years we haven't even tried.

"Why else might they be doing this then?"

That really is the scary question.

What are they about to do/already done that it is reasonable to suspect that citizens/non-citizens of the U.S. will protest/riot enough to be deemed terrorism and worthy of detaining people on our military bases?

"I'm not sure what the answer is, but in ten years we haven't even tried."

I, well, OK, I'll be rude and say you've been cheated of an education.

The answer to this question lies in the definition of "war".

Idiots, some of them well-meaning, have been using this term for everything to do with the Middle East.

If you are one of these people, you should stop. War is declared by Congress. Until they do that, there is no such thing, regardless of the amount of violence. The War Powers Act is the instrument under which the President has been acting - exactly as G.W. Bush before him - and it allows Congress to play, to look concerned, to have sex with the interns and let the President swing in the wind.

Declaring war identifies an enemy. It establishes definitions. It clarifies the somehow unspoken question, "What do we do with a criminal who is NOT an American citizen?"

And THAT is the source of all the hand-wringing, all the grabbing for power by this or that agency: this void left by Congress.

You flushed something today worth more than the lot of them. And you, as a member of the public, allow yourself to be coerced again and again with promises of "safety" from an "enemy" that is defined by the people who sell you your own fear!

Joe J.,

The real point of Niemöller isn't which group, or order, but that when we allow those in power to pick a group (or create a group) then remove that group's rights as citizens, the rights unalienable to human beings, the rest of us will follow unless we take a stand. We have to take a stand even for those we hate, disagree with, or find incoherent.

Lenin and Stalin give archetypal examples, from kulak to revisionist to engineer saboteur. Hitler was later.

I took you're comment as an inversion, with your last line as the clincher, which is why I called it apt. I should have written so. Eventually, if not stopped, someone who calls foul on the government will be in the outlier group.

The Den Mother,

It is different, and the Geneva definitions fail except that none of the terrorists fall under the protections of the same, Europeans be damned. However, every citizen or foreign national living in the 50 states or various territories (I'm not sure of Commonwealth) are covered by the Constitution, where we have acknowledged and then made a pact that rights are inherent not granted, however the underlying philosophy was derived. You can't, you must not, say "terrorist" then ignore our pact. It will not go well.

Radwaste,

You are so rad, although I'll quibble over "not a citizen" within the boundaries I laid out to The Den Mother. We do need clear definitions and the "War Powers Act" is insufficient, just a way of "you go meddle while we try to get reelected".

I'm not ready to go Lincoln (no insurrection) and never Wilson. FDR not so much either.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Patrick,

The lack of sympathy for this sick fuck is understandable, but it's when his rights are violated that we have to protest the most vehemently. Otherwise, law enforcement now has the foot in the door to do this to the people we do like...or even to us.

OK, there was a sale on Niemöller at Walmart and I bought too many, so I have to give them away for Christmas. Well said.

The Feds granted themselves power over 100 miles from the border of Mexico. This is nearly all of Pima County (Tucson falls within), as well Santa Cruz and Cochise. This was ruled in '75: "Federal law gives Border Patrol the authority to police areas within 100 miles of the border, but courts have rejected the agency's arguments that within that zone, typical Fourth Amendment protections do not apply. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1975 ruled in U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce that Border Patrol agents cannot stop vehicles at random without suspicion." (From Thomson Reuters News & Insight, Featuring content from Westlaw).

The Border Patrol routinely ignores it. Routinely. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Not our government, any of the branches, unless political power by protest - civil disobedience, suit, or by ballot. How many times any before they listen? Check the head of a pin for angels, you'll find the number.

"Federal law gives Border Patrol the authority to police areas within 100 miles of the border"

Which oh so coincidentally works out to cover a majority of the US population.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Thank, sio,

For an even more depressing view. I'm rather shocked at the 100 mile zone where we border no nation, must be all those boat people from Vietnam and behind the Iron Curtain.

Canada? We worry about Canada? (I know Al Qaeda can come through Canada but if you don't catch them at the border what do you by the time they hit Dearborn?)

Okay, I'm going to be the bucket of cold water thrown on this love-in. When it comes to non-citizens who commit acts of sabotage within the U.S., or conspire to, I'm fine with military tribunals. In fact, I'd be fine with summary execution, except that we need some kind of process to make sure that we've got the right people (and to get intel out of them). People, look: People who enter a country to commit acts of war, especially against civilian targets, are saboteurs. They are classified by the Geneva Convention as illegal combatants, and they have no rights under the Convention whatsoever. I see no reason why we should grant rights under the Constitution to those who enter the country in order to destroy same. What about the rights of citizens and legal visitors not to be murdered in cold blood while they are going about their ordinary business?

And this is consistent with long-standing traditions regarding the handling of spies and saboteurs. During WWII, Nazi Germany tried to infiltrate a sabotage squad into the U.S. (look up Operation Pastorius). Among their assigned tasks were to bomb factories, mine railroads, and poison the New York water supply. They were caught, put on trial by military commission, convicted, and executed.

Having said that... the equation changes when the person involved is a U.S. citizen. Unless that person is caught on the battlefield, actively engaged against American troops, then they must be prosecuted and tried via the normal judicial process. Anything else sets a terrible precedent, as many here have pointed out.

During the several years following 9/11, viewing Islamofascism as an existential threat was not unreasonable.

A decade on, though, we need to see it for what it is: a declining, self-defeating nuisance.

Which doesn't even come close to justifying this nonsense.

(Cousin Dave is right, technically speaking. But the payoff doesn't begin to justify the cost.)

Being an American citizen didn't do Herbert Haupt any good, Cousin Dave. He got fried in the electric chair right alongside his Nazi buddies. If that set a terrible precedent, no one seems to have been very concerned for the next 69 years.

Perspective?

McVeigh was executed for bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. That's fine with me. There is no doubt, none, about his primary involvement.

What do you propose for a person captured - anywhere - setting a similar device to McVeigh's, or aiming an RPG, or setting an IED, at your neighbor in uniform?

Think carefully. No one here has actually learned about a battlefield while sitting in the dark eating popcorn.

And the criminal justice system is completely inadequate for arresting squads of men.

> McVeigh was executed for bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Yes, following a civilian trial. That seemed to work out fine.

> And the criminal justice system is completely inadequate for arresting squads of men.

No, it's not.

If you allow the military to start acting within the borders of our country against our own citizens, you fundamentally change the nature of our country. In a profound and chilling manner.

Yeah, it just makes me want to go all Posse Comitatus. Problem being though: the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress. (quote from the Wiki)

But I do still agree with you. It should be limited to insurrection or whatever else laid out in the Constitution. An Act of Congress? Phfft...of course, Posse Comitatus was an Act of Congress, thus their out. They just couldn't leave it up to the Constitution.

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Ariel, you still are missing what I am saying.
Perhapse this would illustrate it. what I am saying is more equivalent to.

First they came for the Jews,
Then in the name of "fair rights", the Jews rose up and came for the Nazis,
Then in the name of "fair rights", the Nazis rose up and came for the Jews,
Then in the name of "fair rights", the Jews rose up and came for the Nazis,
Then in the name of "fair rights", the Nazis rose up and came for the Jews,
Then in the name of "fair rights", the Jews rose up and came for the Nazis,
.....
With each swing of the pendulum, are sparked by claims of the downtrodden of the day of being unfairly targeted and the wish to restore rights, and with each swing a new right is
killed off.
Substitute, Republican liked special interest groups and Democrat liked special interest groups for J and N, whichever way you want, and that is what I see happening.

Which is very different than first they came for X and I did nothing. It is more first they came for X and I panicked and made it even worse in the other direction.

The Herbert Haupt case was kind of troubling, but he wasnt only a US citizen, he was also a german citizen, aided the germans in the war effort and vollenteered to be a saboture and a mass murderer. Most telling is he never bothered to 'defect' back to american authorties once back in america.

He was a spy working for a forign power. Any of our spys caught by other countries in a time of war would be just as justifiably executed

If this provision is actually signed into law, I will support Ron Paul in the primary. He will be the President least likely to use this malignant power, at least for political purposes.

@Jerry: Really? Is there even such a thing as a DHS van with lights and sirens?

Franko - arrest a hundred people for conspiracy to bomb, say, the White House. Then, while this is going on, arrest dozens more for a plot to shoot airliners sitting on the tarmac.

What do you think happens?

Do you not remember just how long it took to try OJ? Do you not remember what happened in the Lockerbie case?

Do you not remember the chaos, the disorganization in the Moussaoui trial? That was just one guy!

Can you name precedent in American jurisprudence that tried, oh, ten people for using military weapons against Americans in the USA?

It's not happening now, not because of the TSA leering at little kids, but because the enemy is either not here or is being thwarted by means outside the courts - which are transparent.

Meanwhile, it remains ridiculous to insist that someone carrying an RPG be Mirandized. This discussion, in addition to ignoring the situation brought about by Congress' refusal to declare war, is an extension of the hash-pipe dream that passing a law equals enforcement.

Here's what I mean: just as a natural disaster overwhelms medical resources, coordinated guerrilla attack can clog courts. And it will not wait for you to collect your wits and go through the process.