It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NDAA shows government weakness

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
While the Civil Libertarians freeze up in fear or turn red in the face with rage over the recent passing of the National Defense Authorization Act I cannot help but laugh. After dedicating some time into learning about this act and its historical, even legal, significance it all led me to a single conclusion. This is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Libertarians such as ‘Eric’ wrote that “We have crossed the rubicon”, meaning the United States now is no better than the Third Reich or Soviet Russia. That is a gross exaggeration, to say the least. The American people are, generally, not afraid of government doing unconstitutional things in the name of security. Most of the time we do not even know about it, but do not worry ourselves over the repercussions either. To Civil Libertarians it is obviously because we are passive sheep who are blind to reality; I beg to differ.

The fact is, Raison d’état is above constitutional limitations. Of course there are limits to which the public will accept these deviations from the established law in the name of security, but often time’s government never goes far enough to ruffle the feathers of its hens. To the Libertarian, the government is that big bad wolf watching, waiting, with dripping jaws preying on the retarded hens. Unfortunately Conservatives in the West have also fallen into this left-wing mental prison.

We need only look back to the German jurist Carl Schmitt whose definition of sovereignty stated: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”. Basically what Schmitt was saying is that a sovereign authority is that which can decide on when to make an exception to its own laws. To those doctrinaire Civil Libertarians who are Leftist (like it or not) there are no exceptions. They are basically anti-political creatures whose sole underlying current, consciously accepted or not, is that they desire the state to dissipate. But there is no escape from politics and there must always be a sovereign. This is not even mention Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

What is really disturbing the Left is that there is a provision allowing the executive to imprison American citizens. However, that which is most concerning is why the government decided it need to make this its Raison d’état. Why did the Congress and President decide that that which they had been doing unofficially, and unconstitutionally, now must be made explicit and legal? Do you honestly believe our President has not already been engaged in the acts made explicitly available to him in this act?

With that said, why would the government now want to make this explicit and legal? Could it be that they want to begin large-scale roundups of American citizens into some form of concentration camps? If that is the case then yes, I would recommend we all begin looking for jobs and housing in the great white north. But, instead of being horrifying and exciting, perhaps it better shows the actual weakness of our government. It proves that our government is weak because it is unwilling to act forcefully on its own behalf, unable to define its enemy, and actually believes that somehow their Raison d’état can be made legal and constitutional.

Therefore this merely shows not only the American citizens paying close enough attention to the development, but intelligent enemies of the state, that our federal government is too weak to even defend itself. They prefer, instead, to weaken themselves by attempting to make the illegal, legal, and the unconstitutional, constitutional, while simultaneously letting their enemies know that they will be coming for them.

Quit wetting your pants, all this shows is more government weak-kneed incompetence.

I would like to make it perfectly clear though, I do not agree with indefinite detention of American citizens by our government anywhere, at any time, for any reason. That part I deeply disagree with, BUT, in the end I still feel that the legislation overall is not something to be that scared of.


edit on 12/20/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
whew feel better? how about we drop all labels, because I do not know what the heck they all mean. (It is really hard when one person uses a label to describe a different label). Anyway I think the main problems with this country is we need to re-establish the republic of laws and get rid of this crappy so called democracy. We do the same things we cite literally every other country about. Second goal for the citizens should be to strip everything down to the way the original laws where written, most notably the amendments that incorporate the United States of America, into UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get it they are both two different identities. Of course the federal reserve should prob go, the only reason why I say that is, is because every Empire that has to borrow from a central bank if you will always collapses. Look at Roman Empire, all the way back. We are crazy to keep on the same path, and I am not sure Ron Paul is that man that can even stop this freaking machine..



 
1

log in

join