posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:41 PM
The Real Conversation
I'm not talking about Obama hating. I'm not talking about left and right BS. I'm not talking about how Ron Paul is the Libertarian's Obama
(messiah pun). I'm talking about the real conversation about this act. When reading through this thread I see very little real discussion.
Are you a terrorist?
Do you routinely coordinate with or are otherwise affiliated with Al Qaeda?
The drafters of the Constitution trampled it constantly. Are we really that different?
The founding fathers would openly use the Military to quell rebellions on US soil.
The United States has been killing United States citizens since day one. We're not exactly breaking "new ground" here.
What does it mean to "defend the Constitution"?
Why was this act drafted?
I present that list for a few reasons, but partly because people have this fairy-tale view of 18th century United States, our Founding Fathers, and
the Constitution. These were brutally rebellious times. These men were war lords, financial elites, corrupt business men, or, in other words, the new
US Aristocracy. So little has changed, fundamentally, yet people are up in arms thinking that we are destroying some ordained set of principles that
had once created a utopian existence.
That's fantasy. It's not real.
We're a Union of States trying to do the best we can. But when you look at absolutely everything through the lens that somehow the US Government is
different than the US People, and there is a mastermind and nefarious centuries long plan to keep you stupid, poor, and intimidated until the ultimate
day of reckoning when they can kill of the lot of you and imprison the rest, then it's going to be ultra hard for you to be a contributing member of
society. But, if you approach the issues through a more realistic lens then you might find yourself in a position to actually make a difference.
This law says if you're a terrorist, plotting against the US with Al Qaeda, then you can possibly be considered a combatant and dealt with by the
military. Sure, it's a sticky and tricky subject, and should be approached carefully, but it's not completely out of left field. The US Constitution
straight up says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public
safety may require it."
Clearly is you're plotting against the US government you fit into that category. Right? No? I'm definitely not a law expert, nor a Constitutional
scholar, but I know that since the beginning you were treated extremely harshly if your plan was to rebel against or attack the United States.
If an enemy of the State employs a strategy that is specifically designed to undermine our system of universal human rights (which is not something
everyone believes in, by the way), then are we within reason to modify our laws to combat this new enemy? How do we do that?
So what does it mean to defend the Constitution?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but how can that be if it's also a document that requires interpretation? How can it be supreme if
not only can it be interpreted, but it can be changed?
Finally, on the subject of the Constitution being lauded as some ordained document bestowed upon us as the example of peerless political law. The
Constitution was a huge political win. There were several sides to the story. Some were straight up opposed. Similar to how we have wins now, the
Constitution was a political process. Don't submit to the illusions that the political process was somehow more "pure" then than it is now. It's a
silly notion, and I'm not sure how it's become so prevalent.
To clarify, I'm not saying the US Constitution is not an extremely important piece of political legislation. It obvious is. I'm merely pointing out
that the conversation is not so "cut and dry." I think people get frustrated, and immediately assume corruption or conspiracy, because they've been
led to believe by some that the answers are "easy and obvious," and that the answer are being intentionally "hidden, or withheld from them."
They're not. That's fantasy.
We're trying to do our best, as a Union of States, and as a global citizen. Do your part, but try not to be too naive.
I know for me, personally, I try not to be naive, or ignorant, or blinded by political maneuvers, but I fail all the time. But I continue to try and
overcome those failures, admit those failures, and continue to persevere.
Thanks for listening.