Sunday, December 04, 2011

Standard-Examiner: OUR VIEW: Common Sense Law Enforcement - Updated

Kudos to the Standard, which reminds us that we still live in the United States of America, although you might not recognise it as such, especially following Thursday's pro-totalitarian Senate vote

Top notch editorial in this morning's Standard-Examiner hard-copy edition, calling (among other things) for "common sense when it comes to how law enforcement should handle" "tense" situations, and expressing a well-placed concern that "a norm is developing where excessive force is too often the first reaction to a tense incident where law enforcement is called":
The editorial board also expands it focus a little bit and makes somewhat vague and oblique reference to Senate Bill 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012), which cleared the U.S. Senate earlier this week by a lopsided 93-7 vote:
Since Sept. 11, we have condoned actions in the terror war that are not part of our historical values. American citizens have rights, including civilian trials. That should be constitutional theory 101 for Americans. Yet, even this past week, the U.S. Senate is sanctioning the president of the United States having the right to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial.

When a body as august as the U.S. Senate is willing to pass a law that bars basic rights to Americans, it makes it easier for other law enforcement agencies to justify anti-constitutional behavior. We appreciate the job those who protect us do. It's a tough and stressful job. But we also have to remember where we live -- the United States of America.
For those who haven't been following the disturbing issues surrounding the Senate's knee jerk passage of Senate Bill 1867, here's the full lowdown from one of our online favorites, Alex Jones' InfoWars.Com:
Kudos to the Standard, which reminds us that we still live in the United States of America, although you might not recognise it as such, following Thursday's pro-totalitarian Senate vote.

And while we're on the topic, here's a Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat to Utah's freshman Senator Mike Lee, one of three (and only three) GOP Senators who voted "nay" on this U.S. Constitution-gutting new federal legislation.

Update 12/5/11 7:34 a.m.: Here's a highly detailed analysis of AUMF2012 (SB1867) from former Constitutional and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald, who says:
If someone had said before September 11 that the Congress would be on the verge of enacting a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S., it would be hard to believe. If someone had said after September 11 (or even after the 2006 and 2008 elections) that a Democratic-led Senate — more than ten years later, and without another successful attack on U.S. soil — would be mandating the indefinite continuation of Guantanamo and implementing an expanded AUMF, that, too, would have been hard to believe. But that’s exactly what Congress, with the active participation of both parties, is doing. And the most amazing part of it all is that it won’t change much, because that is more or less what Washington, without any statutory authorization, has already done. That’s how degraded our political culture is: what was once unthinkable now barely prompts any rational alarm — not because it’s not alarming, but because it’s become so normalized.
Read up:


Benjamin Franklin said...

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

googlegirl said...

Do Not Let Our US Senators Who Voted for S1867 Return Home With Honor

googlegirl said...

Are Americans in Line for Gitmo?

Biker_Babe3 said...

OMG -- seriously?!?

(a) Graham’s pronouncement (widely shared by those supporting Awlaki’s
assassination) that “if you’re an American citizen and you betray your
country, you’re not going to be given a lawyer” to (b) the
Constitutional requirement in Art. III, Sec. 3 that “No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses
to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” To deny
a citizen the right to a lawyer and go to court on the ground that
they’ve “betrayed their country” and thus deserve to be imprisoned
without a trial (or, worse, to be assassinated without one) is as violent a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution as one can imagine, literally.

nonono, I can't take it no more [Ringo Starr]


Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved