“I’m not a dictator”
Obama said that only days ago.
I have news for you, saying something doesn’t make it so, actions do. Obama’s actions recently, and those his administration, are not those of a man who thinks that he has checks and balances working against him, or a constitution and bill of rights to uphold. If it walks like a dictator, talks like a dictator, and legislates like a dictator…it’s a dictator. At the very least a fledgling one.
Who cares about the war on women when our current administration waging a war on the bill of rights. They are stomping on the 1st amendment by harassing journalists who try to ask them tough questions and hold them accountable, starting an overt war on the 2nd amendment, and haven’t given a damn about the 10th amendment (except when convenient) since Obama was sworn in.
And now the 4th and 5th amendment are taking the brunt of this administration’s disrespect to American principles.
The full text of the 4th amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
When the Patriot Act and wiretapping without a warrant became an issue after September 11th, people were rightfully outraged at this violation of our civil liberties, but during this administration the outrage is minimal, at best when even more disgusting abuses are being allowed by the Obama administration.
According the Cnet (not exactly a politically biased information source):
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.
Homeland Security’s specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not,” meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify “signals interception” technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and “direction finding” technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios.
Well that’s nothing to worry about, I mean the government would never abuse that power.
Besides, the founders could never have imagined things like radios or cellphones, so the 4th amendment doesn’t really apply to them anyway.
Even more worrisome is the latest news on drone strikes on American citizens. Last month I wrote about the fact that the government was allowing itself the power to suspend due process when it comes to Americans on foreign soil, who were an “imminent threat” to US security, so that they could send drones to take them out without trial.
As a reminder, the text of the 5th amendment reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
But that story was on foreign soil right? So as long as I stay on American soil I should be fine, no matter what the definition of “imminent threat” is, right?
Now Eric “fast and furious” Holder responded to a request from Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for information on whether “the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial”. Holder’s response (in part):
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.
– Eric Holder (via Mother Jones)
Oh that makes me feel so much more secure.
Once again, just like in the original case of drone strikes on Americans on foreign soil, the terms are vaguely defined, using references to Pearl Harbor and September 11th to define what an “extraordinary circumstance” is, and have no real meanings. What does “extraordinary circumstance” mean? What does “imminent threat” means? How do they decide that? Who decides that? Are we talking terrorist attack on the White House or journalists asking impertinently pointed questions about the President’s policies?
Should I be watching the sky for drones?
A caller on Dana Loesch’s show pointed out that terrorist’s in Guantanamo receive more due process than American citizen’s do at this point.
We might as well admit that our constitution is in shamble’s under this administration. No one can deny that fact anymore, without looking like a goddamn idiot.
The founder’s are spinning so fast in their graves right now that we could probably use them to generate power for the entire country.