Thursday, December 31, 2009
Here is a baker's dozen from 2009
1. Ginsburg's Comments Underscore Deeper Disregard for Constitutional Authority
2. What's In A Name? (Why Conservative Used to and Should Still Mean Libertarian)
3. Why Abortion is Unconstitutional
4. Which Price Will You Pay?
5. Socialized Medicine: A Threat to the Constitution and Responsibility
6. Consistency in our "Fidelity to the Law"
7. The Battle for our Continued Revolution
8. Consistency in our Pursuit of Privacy
9. Lindsey Graham: A Souless Man
10. If That Isn't the Kettle Calling the Pot...Well...You Know
11. My Thoughts on KSM and Those at Gitmo
12. Unconstitutionality Trumps Grandma
13. Nullification Post
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Read the following post for all the details, but here is a taste:
Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House Democrats’ political caucus, said Tuesday Lynn’s comments harkened back to Civil War-era arguments. In the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, South Carolina passed a law nullifying federal tariffs, but the state backed down after President Andrew Jackson sent Navy warships to the Charleston harbor.
“Susan Lynn is yearning for times gone by,” Turner said. “Maybe we could put the poor people back to sharecropping and slavery and let the people up at the big house have all the nice things. We’ve already had that fight about states’ rights.
“I’m probably against everything that Susan Lynn’s for. I know people in her district without health care insurance. I know people in her district without jobs. These people are suffering. I’m just not sure she lives in the same world as everybody else.”
Lynn responded, “I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”
This is why we we must work to combat ignorance by those who seek to do away with the constitution and violate our freedom. Nullification is right, and it is constitutional. Let's prove it without be discouraged by foolish attacks like those made by Rep. Turner.
Recently, State Representative Susan Lynn spoke on the matter during Mike Church's radio show (transcript here). While there she let it be known that the Tenth Amendment is alive and well in the volunteer state.
When asked what could be done to fight against the unconstitutional healthcare bill's possible final passage, Lynn replied, "Well, I wrote a letter to our attorney general, asking him to please prepare to take any appropriate legal action against the federal government in case the healthcare bill passes. And this is because this is clearly a violation of equal protection. But more than that, it’s an affront to our state sovereignty."
Later on when asked if there were nullification plans in the works for this "affront to state sovereignty," Rep. Lynn replied, "Yeah, it’s my understanding that a nullification bill is going to be filed in Tennessee."
There you have. Some in Tennessee do intend to fight the proposed healthcare reform bill if it goes into law through nullification. Hopefully, this fight will bring the principle of nullification back into the public eye, and we are able to show how the principle is constitutional, beneficial, and just, perhaps we can begin to turn back an out-of-control federal government and reestablish constitutional rule.
If you are interested in the concept of nullification, please check out my recent article on issue.
Monday, December 28, 2009
No doubt we live in a dangerous time. Weapons of mass destruction are owned and produced by major powers with the constant threat of theses same weapons falling into the hands of rouge groups or even individuals. While terrorism is nothing new, since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the actions following that attack, we have seen much blood spilled and many lives taken in the so-called "War on Terror."
What has happened over the past decade, however, is not the only danger we have faced and continue to face. Rather, our very own foreign policy has become a massive danger to our republic and our very existence. We have turned away from the sound principles of a strong national defense to an offensive approach of undeclared, preemptive war.--something to be lamented.
We have turned the principles of liberty envisioned by our Founders completely on its head. We are no safer for the trouble, and thousands of our brave men and women--as well as numerous innocents--have lost their lives.
We have set a dangerous precedent--that of preemptive war. Therefore, I shutter at the future if we continue this reckless and immoral foreign policy into the years to come.
As I read the following Politico story, it seems that at least for now the policy of reckless preemptive war shows no sign of stopping.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) were on Fox News Sunday describing Yemen as an emerging hotbed of terrorist threats — and calling for pre-emptive action against the failing Islamic state on the Saudi peninsula if necessary.
Lieberman: "Somebody in our government said to me in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday’s war. ... Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act pre-emptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war. That’s the danger we face."
Specter said an attack against targets in Yemen should be "something we should consider."
How can we even consider this? What real threat can that nation truly pose to us? When will these wars stop? How many must die until their thirst for blood be satisfied?
These questions demand answers. I am truly troubled by talk like this coming from our elected officials.
Now, I am no peace-nick hippy. Moreover, I believe that war can be and is at times justified, but I cannot understand the current foreign policy pursued by our leadership.
Hopefully, we will change our attitudes before it is too late. Otherwise, I fear we will never have any peace and our nation will crumble by the weight of its own commitment as world policeman.
Friday, December 25, 2009
The Birth of Jesus Christ (from the Gospel of Luke)
2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
The Shepherds and the Angels
8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” 
15 When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. 17 And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. 18 And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.
21 And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Jesus Presented at the Temple
22 And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” 25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
29 “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
according to your word;
30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to your people Israel.”
33 And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The last presidency has radically changed the way the American Right views what is right. Conservatism, which according to Reagan had libertarianism at its "very hearty and soul," (see here) has been radically reshaped to stand for war-mongering and liberty-bashing. I, for one, am tired of statists from both sides who are in a philosophical bed together pointing to libertarians as some new fringe movement. Those who loved liberty built this country and made it great. The values we hold were those of our Founders. Their values were those of our oppressors.
Be warned: if you value life, liberty, and property, be prepared to continue to face demonization by these party shills and philosophical midgets.
Monday, December 21, 2009
As we creep closer to socialized medicine, I am continually reminded that many enemies of liberty do not understand why, though they shackle us with unconstitutional legislation, they are not greeted as liberators.
It is because our current struggle in which we see our liberties further eroded is, for the most part, nothing more than a symptom of a broader problem--the problem of good intentions.
Now, good intentions are not bad. In fact, I work in accordance with good intention as I am sure most do. The problem arises when we let our desire for good blind us to the results of our actions.
The good intent of wanting to help granny get down the steps quicker cannot justify me giving her a little push. Yes, intentions count, but so do results.
Not all actions by our elected officials have noble origins. Corruption, immorality, and the like rule quite often at all levels of government. But on occasion, good intentions back legislative decisions. However, what we must realize is that government is not a game of effort, but rather, it involves human lives--human lives whose life and liberty are often in peril when met with government interference.
So let us always stand against action of bad intention, but also, let us guard against what is proposed for our "own good."
We must remember that however noble the intentions, the results are what matters. Perhaps many in Congress desire passage of Obamacare because they truly want to help. But when its passage results in loss of life and liberty, there noble intentions will be nothing more than a kind start to a bitter end.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The judge concludes:
Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.
When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.
They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.
Friday, December 18, 2009
While you are there check out some of the other fine articles from one of my favorite blogs on the net.
My article begins:
Thomas Jefferson once proclaimed when referring to the checking of federal power, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
It seems that little shocks me in our current political climate, but I was forced to do a double take when I read the headline: Ben Bernanke named Time Person of the Year.
The man who added to the build-up of our current economic crises, the man who has continued to dig us into a deeper hole, that man is the man of the year.
In a year the President Obama can escalate a war and win the Nobel Peace Prize, I should not be surprised.
It seems that, war is peace, lies are truth, and failure is success here in the good ole U.S. of A.
I agree with Ron Paul that Bernanke himself is not evil, but the system of which he is head definitely is very evil.
*Note: I just found this cool video right now. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul both talking about the issues. I am a fan of both men.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Today is Bill of Rights Day in the United States.
I have long been smitten with our Bill of Rights. I guess I really first became truly aware of them (as least as much as I can remember) in the fifth grade--the same time I began to revere the Constitution as a whole. Like the rest of the Constitution, when I first read the Bill of Rights, I did not fully understand them. But I was quite fascinated by what I did comprehend--or at least thought I comprehended.
As time has worn one, I have become a bit more wise--or at least less ignorant--and I continue to love the history and theory behind our first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Anyone who knows the difference between a federalist and an anti-federalist knows the story behind the creation and adoption of the Bill of Rights. (And how the anti-federalists were right all along.) In a nutshell here it is.
Fearing that the proposed Constitution would leave too much of a chance for the newly formed federal government to go beyond its power and infringe on the liberty of sovereign states and individuals, the anti-federalists--including Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason--opposed the adoption of the Constitution. The federalist Madison did not really understand all the hullabaloo. His position was that the people had no reason to fear loosing their rights under the Constitution as the government could only act as expressly laid out by the document. But in an effort to keep the anti-federalists from undermining the document's ratification, Madison drafted some 20 some odd amendments, sent them out to the states, and what survived became the Bill of Rights.
With the promised protection of rights, the federalist convinced the states to come together and adopt the new Constitution. Supposedly states' rights would be protected and individual liberty would not be in jeopardy.
Of course, we know that has not been the case. As constittuional interpretation has become more broad, liberty has shrunk. Moreover, many of the anti-federalist fears have now come true. Not only has the original document been trambled upon, but the Bill of Rights itself has been gutted.
So as we celebrate Bill of Rights Day, is it a day for celebration or mourning.
Monday, December 14, 2009
While the intent of our Founders was for the states to act as "laboratories of democracy" with each differing in its laws, we now are forced into uniformity. Once one could move to a freer state and leave behind the laws and governance he/she despised. Now we cannot escape these liberty infringements as it is the federal government who demands that states act according to federal standers set by those in DC. What's more, this uniformity is usually in the path that offers least freedom.
An affront to localism is more often than not an affront to liberty.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The greatest economy the world had ever seen has been horribly mismanaged and virtually ruined by the decisions of presidents, Congress and the Federal Reserve. Main Street has been wiped as Wall Street was bailed out. Why?
Bring on the auditors!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.
“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.
The leadership is betting that it’s better for the party to take its lumps now rather than risk further votes over the coming year.
There you have it. As debt continues to build up, the government solution is more of the same. Rather than tightening the belt, cutting spending, and reducing debt, the Democrats in Congress are proposing more loose fiscal policy, more spending, and more debt.
This is nothing short of outrageous as there are two major things going on here.
First, already swimming in debt caused by unconstitutional spending and allocation, Congress is now faced with the fruits of its labor. Instead of facing this debt and reducing it, Congress will merely change the rules, allowing themselves to take on more debt and put off paying its bills. This is akin to paying off one credit card with another. The debt remains, the obligation remains, but the problem intensifies.
Second, proponents of this massive increase in debt allowance are being strategic in their timing. The want to make this unpopular move now in hopes that the voters will not remember when it comes time to cast their ballots Fall of next year. This is shameful, but it could be effective. Sadly, history shows that the electorate has a short attention span, a faulty memory, and a habit of misplaced blame.
May it not be so next November. Let's remember those at fault--regardless of party--and cast the scoundrels out of office. We cannot take on more debt, and we cannot afford the debt we already have. This will be our ruin just as it has been the ruin of all great powers. We cannot afford to allow this plan to pass and we cannot afford to forget these traitors to our republic when it comes time to vote. Let us remember and demand responsibility from those who betray the very constitution they swore to protect.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
I hate the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). I truly do. In fact, as an avid college football fan, nothing would please me more than a playoff system. But one thing I hate more than the BCS is unconstitutional congressional meddling.
The Associate Press reports:
WASHINGTON – A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate.
The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.
"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
You are right Rep. Barrow. There are more important issues facing our nation. Even more, Congress has no authority over the matter--not constitutionally, not otherwise.
A desire for an ending of the BCS cannot trump constitutional fidelity, plain and simple.
It is important to note that those who aren't even strict constitutionalists cannot make a sound argument for Congress acting on the matter. Yes, most of the schools that participate in the Bowl Championship Series are public schools which receive funding and regulation from DC, but that does not come near settling the issue.
The BCS is a private system, and is not set up by the government for the participation of its public schools. Moreover, participation in the BCS is completely voluntary for those who desire to be ranked and bowl eligible within the BCS system; it is not compulsory.
So why is Congress meddling in the issue? Because Washington is full of statists who care not for liberty. This latest act is further proof of a government gone wild, trumping freedom at every level.
We must combat statism whenever it rears its ugly head whether we like the results or not.
I would love to see a playoff system and an end to the BCS, but, not at the cost of liberty and constitutional infidelity.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Today I read a Tennessean article describing the efforts of Lamar Alexander (R-TN) as he works with party leadership to combat Obamacare. This article was sent to me by the Tennessee Republican Party lauding one of their party members. I do not share in this praise. Of course, I want the current Senate “healthcare reform” bill to fail, but I can offer no praise to the words or deeds of Sen. Alexander and those like him.
The Article Begins:
To understand Sen. Lamar Alexander's role in the ongoing debate in the Senate on health-care reform legislation, you have to go back to a floor speech Alexander made in July.
"We are talking about Medicare cuts and spending grandma's Medicare money on somebody else," Alexander said back then. His comments received no press coverage.
During the next six months, Alexander repeated some version of that phrase 13 more times during floor speeches.
By last week, he had refined the message: "If we are going to take money from grandma's Medicare, let's spend it on grandma."
The article then quotes Senator Bob Corker (R-TN):
"Our focus is to stay on the core message," Corker said. That message is that the health-care bill includes Medicare cuts, higher taxes and unfunded Medicaid mandates on the states.
My concern with the health care bill isn't that there is going to be a gobbling up of "grandma's Medicare." In fact, the Medicare program is repugnant to the Constitution and should be ended.
My concern is simple: the federal government lacks the authority to provide health insurance.
Do I believe that the proposed Obamacare plan will lead to higher costs, higher taxes, unfunded mandates, rationing, and countless other mistakes? Absolutely! But if none of these concerns were on the table, I would still oppose the plan because it is unconstitutional. (See my previous post.)
We need reform, but we don't need what is being proposed. Moreover, we need to make sure that if we oppose government run healthcare and health insurance, we need to really oppose government healthcare and insurance (i.e Medicare.)
As for me, I will not use fear tactics (though they be grounded in truth) as my rallying cry. Rather, I will stand upon the Constitution, I will stand upon morality, and I will stand against anything to the contrary.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Note: if you see a post with what looks like no content, it is probably just a link. Click on it, read, and enjoy. I want to link rather than copy and paste into my blog so that readers will be directed to those who originally provided the content. Though, feel free to comment on my page if you would like.
Some stories I will provide commentary on, and some I will merely link to. But I do intend to start linking to more articles here on my blog. Of course, I will continue to provide original content (hopefully much more than I have been able to provide over the past few months). So that will not change.
Finally, please feel free to comment more and interact with other readers. That is truly what makes blogging worth while for both writers and readers. As always, if you would like me to write on any particular topic, just shoot me a message and let me know.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Today is the one year anniversary of the founding of Young Americans for Liberty. What grew out of Students for Ron Paul has now become a driving force for liberty on campuses across the nation.
Working as a Leadership Institute field rep from late August to mid-November of this year, I had the esteemed privileged of working with existing YAL groups and helping to start new ones in Louisiana and Mississippi. It was this work with YAL that I truly enjoyed most because I am fully committed to its vision and mission. To all of my friends who work with Young Americans for Liberty: keep up the good work!
May its success continue and may YAL have many happy and fruitful years to come!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Just as the air in Tennessee is still full of “Ron Paul” Republican Matt Collins’ ousting from the Davidson County GOP, the national party has created an uproar by discussion of a so-called “purity test” to determine which candidates should receive party support.
In the ousting of Collins we find someone who is committed to traditional Republican positions and true conservative principles being cast out from the party ranks. At the national level, we find the party trying to cast out just the opposite and withdraw support from RINOs (or at least that is the official story). However, a look at the so-called “purity list” reveals that many true conservatives and champions of constitutional government (including myself and of course Ron Paul) would fail the test.
(I recommend the following article for the complete list and an explanation of potential failures.)
When reading over the list a few things jumped out.
Purity Pledge #1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill.
Well…I sort of can sign on to this one, but I have a huge problem with the wording. I don’t support “smaller national debt [and] lower deficits.” Rather I support no national debt and no deficits. By using the language of "lower," we have already given up philosophical ground. But still I can live with this one.
Purity Pledge #6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.
Oh, we do? I don’t, and neither do a number of conservative Republicans who have had enough with the wars in the Middle East and understand that throwing more troops at the situation will do little more than put more of our brave men and women in harm’s way.
Purity Pledge #7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
This is a broad statement that could entail a number of things. Based on the rhetoric coming from many party members, I cannot sign on to this one, and neither can a number of conservatives within the party.
Purity Pledge #8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
I am 100% pro-traditional marriage and am at the same time against the Defense of Marriage Act. The government should not be in the business of marriage--heterosexual or otherwise. When it does get involved in this matter, liberty is trampled and more problems are created. And most importantly, the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in marriage in the first place. The Act is unconstitutional!
There it is. I cannot sign on to seven or more--the requirement for GOP support. (Well...maybe I can depending on how we score pledge number 1.) Therefore, being a peace-loving and liberty-loving individual, I cannot depend on support from the GOP even though my views are much more in line with that of the GOP for the majority of the twentieth century.
I think the “purity test” is well intentioned and a step in the right direction. The problem is that those defining conservative are not conservatives themselves.
Myself, I have one standard that must be met for my support of a candidate: fidelity to the Constitution. Sadly even fewer pass this “purity test.”
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
With the recent decision by the Obama administration to try foreign terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City under civilian courts and the controversy over statements made by liberty-defender and US Senate candidate Rand Paul on the matter, I feel it necessary to present my position on the issue. Few have heard it, and it is about time I lay my neck out on the line with regard to this controversial issue.
First, let me lay out some general beliefs and positions I hold on the matter.
1. Terrorists should be brought to justice. Though I am against our wars in the Middle East, I do not support our enemies, and anyone who carries out acts of terror and war against the United States and its citizens deserves to be brought to justice.
2. The rule of law must be respected. I am a Constitutionalist and no one is quicker to call for adherence to the rule of law than myself even if the results are unpopular.
3. I am against unlawful detention. We must never detain anyone, citizens or not, without due process.
4. The United States should hold ourselves to a higher standard than that of our enemies. Our Constitution itself presents a higher standard, and foreign actions should not dictate our own.
I firmly believe that what has been going on at Guantanamo Bay is beneath the United States, fundamentally wrong, and inexcusable. That being said, we should not seek remedy through swinging too far in the other direction.
I agree with Dr. Rand Paul’s statement: "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution. These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.” (as long as his statement is tailored to the current matter at hand)
Does this mean that I agree with the Bush administration’s position or that of a many “conservative” commentators? By no means! Rather, I am disgusted by the fear mongering that I see going on in the media. I am fully confident in our ability to hold, try, and carry out justices toward terrorists on our own soil. I don’t buy these arguments cloaked in fear, and I would argue quite the opposite.
However, there have been many horrible acts done in the name of safety and defense over the last 8 years, and going out of our way to do something we are not constitutionally constrained to do is a mistake.
We must not be quick to wed our own views of what is right with that of the Constitution.
Military tribunals do satisfy due process requirements under the Constitution, they can be useful and just tools in trying citizens (like our troops) and non-citizens arrested on the battle field (like KSM), and they should be used more often to give those arrested the due process rights they deserve. There is no excuse for gathering up people and holding them without charge and trial. But, likewise, there is no excuse for trying to go beyond constitutional requirements because of past (and present) mistakes.
Remember, though some rights apply general to citizens and foreigner within the US the same (ex. Freedom of Speech), others do not (ex. Right to Vote). The US has violated many rights of individuals in Gitmo and beyond, but we are well within both the limits of the Constitution and prudence to try these terrorists at Gitmo or in the field (where it should really be done) by military tribunals. However, to swing to the other side and say that these enemy combatants should not be tried and should be rounded up as is the current practice: that is a moral and constitutionally indefensible position.
I would like to end with more clarification of my position. First, we should leave Cuba completely and close our Guantanamo Bay base. Cuba should be left sovereign over its land, and we should not be having an empire abroad. Second, just because I and Rand Paul hold to the same end position as some we are in great disagreement with, I assure you we get there by drastically different means. And I have little problem with terrorists being tried on US soil. My problem is with the claim that foreign terrorist share all the same privileges and immunities under the Constitution as US citizens and that military tribunals do not meet due process requirements; both are false charges.
Finally, let’s close Gitmo and stop violating constitutional and human rights. But let’s not trade bad policy for more bad policy.