Obama on Accountability and the Rule of Law

It was just incredibly disapointing when Rahm Emanual,  Obama's Chief of Staff and virtual co-President, said that not only weren't we going to investigate those who carried out torture, but we would also leave the architects of the program uninvestigated.

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program “This Week” that “those who devised policy” also “should not be prosecuted.” But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale.

And while Mr. Obama vowed not to prosecute C.I.A. officers for acting on legal advice, on Monday aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.

That's bad.

It's going to be an interesting three years for those of us on the Constitutional Left.  We need to keep in mind that Obama is a strategist who plays long ball, and as such we have to be aware that there are more pressing priorities at the moment than accountability for the Bush Administration.  We've all seen the graphs comparing this downturn with historical recessions - the graphs where we're giving the Great Depression a run for its money in GDP and employment terms.  This is a legitimate global crisis, and it must be fully addressed before taking on anything that might cause partisan gridlock.  Heck, just passing a Stimulus Plan that made macroeconomic sense was a process rife with partisanship.  Imagine trying to get those three Senate votes after prosecuting George W. Bush as a war criminal?

The same applies to Don't Ask Don't Tell, by the way.  We have serious, huge legislation to pass, and then we can hit the partisan stuff.

Obama Supports Bush Habeas Revokation?

The NYT is reporting today that Obama will continue the Bush Administration's legal position on the rights afforded to detainees at Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan.

Listen, I've said this before.  We're in a strange time.  A time when the problems with our form of government have been laid bare by the lawlessness of the Bush Administration.  They hired yes-men lawyers who told them exactly what they wanted to hear, thereby giving the color of law to their flagrant criminality.  From Torture to Wiretapping to Habeas Corpus, the Bush Administration was able to claim (and have their minions loudly repeat) that what they were doing was legal.  Although it wasn't really new ground, 9/11 made it seem like it was, and that was enough to muddle the field.

As perverse as it sounds, Obama needs to continue these policies.  Obviously, the clear law of the land wasn't enough to dissuade a President who seeks to lacerate the Constitution, so how then can we ensure they don't happen again?  Rulings from the Supreme Court, that's how.

Republican Judges Love Gay Marriage

Via Andrew Sullivan we discover that all of the opinions legalizing gay marriage thus far have been authored by Republican-appointed justices. That's remarkable. Here's the list:

Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);

in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);

in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 -- Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.

And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998.

Those damned activist judges, eh?

Public Overwhelming Supports Accountability

Surprise, surprise!  The public actually supports the idea that no one should be above the law in this country, and if that means investigating the Bush Administration, so be it!

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.

Awesome.  This puts the Obama Administration in quite the pickle, since the country supports it, but the media will be absolutely aghast at the thought of prosecuting members of the former Administration.

Supremes to Hear Al Marri Case

So, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear the Al-Marri Case.  They're years late, but it's better late than never.

Al-Marri is one of the greatest travesties of Bush's misguided war on our civil liberties.  He must ultimately find Justice for the good of the nation, but this leads to a perverse situation.  If Obama moves to give him that Justice expeditiously, he could accidentally enshrine the powers seized by our recent Monarch, George W. Bush.  Without his continued indefinite incarceration, the Supreme Court will rule that the issue is moot, since the injustice has been righted.  They've done the same thing before in the Padilla case, where the Bush Administration transferred him to a civilian prison just before the Supremes were to hear the case.  The conservative court (with 7 of 9 Justices appointed by Republicans) refused to grant review in the Padilla case, thereby preserving Bush's justification for his indefinite detentions, and they will surely do so again if given the chance.

So, as awful as it is, I say let him rot in jail for another few months.  Then the Court will be forced to rule, and we will finally have a Supreme Court precedent saying what none of us ever thought would be necessary - that the President does not have the powers of a King in wartime, and cannot simply imprison Americans on American soil without charge or trial on his say-so alone.  That we need to establish this precedent via the Court rather than just relying on the plain reading of the Constitution is a sad, sad thing for the Republic.

Attourney General Refuses to Prosecute Bush Admin Lawbreakers AGAIN

Big Surprise.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday rejected the idea of criminally prosecuting former Justice Department employees who improperly used political litmus tests in hiring decisions, saying he had already taken strong internal steps in response to a “painful” episode.

The Bush Administration thinks that they take oaths to the President. That's unbelievably unAmerican.

If the people tasked with prosecuting criminal acts refuse to do so, a special independent prosecutor may be the only option to retain America as a country ruled by law and not men.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday that the Department of Justice would not pursue criminal charges against former employees implicated in an internal investigation on politicized hiring practices.

“Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it,” Mukasey said in a speech at the American Bar Association. “And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute. But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”

Good god. " Not every violation of the law is a crime." I gotta remember that.

Hamdan Sentenced to Five Months!

Salim Hamdan, the man who won such a stunning victory in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld before the Congress took it away with the Military Commissions Act, was just convicted of being a dastardly driver for Al Qaeda.

The kicker, though, is that this panel of military officers only sentenced him to serve another 5 months or so, since his years already in captivity are credited against his sentence. The reason for this becomes clear when you remember that since he is considered a enemy combatant for doing all that evil driving, when his sentence is over the Bush Administration reserves the right to continue detaining him until the conclusion of the Global War on Terror.

Essentially they sentenced him to serve out the remainder of the Bush Administration. "These guys aren't going to let you out anyway, so we're giving you the lightest possible sentence." The lightness of the sentence proves that his crimes are not serious, I think.

Boortz Call Notes - Impeachment

I was able to get almost all of this on the air:

I had an idea over the weekend that's just a doozy, Uncle Neal. Not only will it defend our constitution from what George Will - my favorite conservative voice - called Monarchical Powers! The powers of a King! The most unAmerican thing you can imagine! Not only will it defend our constitution, but it presents the only path to victory I can see for the Republicans. That path is having the Republicans impeach President Bush.

Now Neal, I know what you're thinking, and I just urge you to give this some serious thought. This is a crossroads for our constitution. Love it and take advantage of your podium.

1. Mr. 25% is hated around the country - repudiation of him would help you IMMENSELY
2. You actually put principle above Party for once
3. Defend the Constitution
4. Hilary would hate it - Pelosi the first female president.

What to impeach for:

1. Lying to the people about the Iraq War - he said things that were contradicted by intelligence. CIA told him the sources were untrustworthy - Newsweek on June 11th
2. Commissioning felonies - FISA - admitted to this on the White House Lawn
3. Ignoring Habeas Corpus - an 800 year tradition -Al Marri - AP, May 24
4. Obstructing Justice - pardoning someone to keep them from talking - selective leaking of classified NIE -> Valerie Plame (proven covert Mar 16th, 2007)

George Will, always my favorite voice out there, called these powers Monarchical! The powers of a King!

McCain is Another Extra-Constitutional President

McCain's position on Presidential Power has gone from Maverick-ey to 3rd-Term-Bush-ey, just like everything else.

December 20, 2007:

"1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

McCain: There are some areas where the statutes don't apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?

McCain: I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

Now:

"A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush's program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance."

Cribbed from Washington Monthly.

Habeas Corpus

Proof:

If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply.

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

George Bush's America, ladies and gentlemen. A nation with a government possessing such powers cannot be described as Free. Time to call Boortz.

UPDATE: I've gotten some objections over the fact that Mr. Al-Marri is not an American citizen. But back as far as 1896 the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the clear language of the 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyone within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States has constitutional rights. In fact, if you read the article, you find the following:

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The fact that "US Person = US Citizen" is canon in our legal system. So much so that even the crazy-assed Bush Administration doesn't try to argue the point. Case closed.

The Definition of Tyranny

George W. Bush's Presidency has largely been about overturning the conventions that have historically served our government well. One of the many confirmations of the radical nature of the Bush Administration is the fact that my case for impeachment of the President relies entirely on arguments and quotations from conservatives.

Here's another to bolster the case. Winston Churchill, who conservatives can't go more than a day without invoking, blasts the Bush Administration's tyranny from beyond the grave:

The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.

George W. Bush is "in the highest degree odious..." You gotta love Churchill.

Founding Fathers on Tyranny

James Madison, easily one of the most conservative of the Founding Fathers, defined Tyranny thusly:

the combination of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in one man or office.

This is a definition even talk radio hosts endorse, since to disagree is to repudiate the very foundations of America - that we are a land of checked power and of laws, not men. Well:

1. Bush is the Executive.
2. With the use of signing statements Bush legislates, and even more importantly, by asserting his right to break criminal law, casts himself above and immune to the duly enacted laws of the Legislature.
3. By suspending Habeas Corpus and imprisoning Americans indefinitely on his say-so alone, Bush is the Judiciary.

In America, do we allow our President to say he is above the Law? In America, do we allow our President to ignore the courts? In America, do we allow our President to act as Judge and imprison our fellow citizens?

I've been through elementary school, and I could have sworn the answer to these questions would be "no." But here we are, with a solid majority of the Republican Party believing textbook Tyranny is acceptable.

Impeachment is our only option, or all Presidents from Bush on will have these tyrannical powers, and America will cease to be the land of the free, for you can lose the Republic on the installment plan as surely as you can in a coup d'etat.

Habeas Not a Right Pt II

Our Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen:

GONZALES: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case, and I'm not a Supreme --

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can't take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say, "Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas." It doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by...

Gonzales is technically correct - the best kind of correct. Our Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of habeas corpus to its citizens. It does guarantee that the right to habeas corpus - which apparently no one actually has - shall not be suspended except during times of insurrection or invasion, but that doesn't mean that we the people actually retain the right. I've seen full arguments articulating this position, and they rely on congressional authorization of scopes of habeas corpus.

Gonzales' reading is exceedingly convenient, isn't it? The Bush Administration doesn't believe in the right to challenge your detention, so it's head lawyer contorts himself thusly. Perhaps he should be reminded of the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That seems clear enough, eh? The really radical thing about America, you see, was that the government of the United States doesn't grant us rights, but rather guarantees them. Our rights are granted by our creator, or by virtue of our shared humanity if you prefer. Rather than our citizens having a set number of rights, it is our government whose powers are enumerated and thereby constrained. We the people retain all the rights not explicitly given to our government, which, at the time of its inception, made America a radical nation indeed.

Just to drive home how scandalous we should view Alberto Gonzales' statement, the following quote from James Madison is useful:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system...

Alberto Gonzales is the avatar of Madison's concern. Yoo's theory of the Unitary Executive is the founder's worst nightmare.

Finally, we have the following comment, via Kevin Drum:

There is indeed no bottom to this Administration's sophistry. So here's something to wonder about. Amendment IV to the US Constitution says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." It doesn't explicitly say only the courts can issue warrants. Nor does Article III say "only courts can issue warrants" in so many words. The word warrant does not appear in the main text of the constitution. I assume this is because we inherited a common-law practice from England that nobody thought needed to be written down. But I don't see why the Gonzales-Yoo school would not declare at some point that the executive branch can issue "warrants" too. Presto! Instant Fourth Amendment compliance! Of a kind.

I've grown into a hearty dislike of Alberto Gonzales. Who could have thought that we'd be nostalgic for Ashcroft?

Diebold Source Stolen and My Boiling Rage

From Slashdot, we have momentous news on the BlackBox Voting scourge:

Doc Ruby writes to tell us about an article in the Baltimore (MD) Sun, reporting that someone sent a package to a former legislator containing what appears to be Diebold source code. From the article: "Diebold Election Systems Inc. expressed alarm and state election officials contacted the FBI yesterday after a former legislator received an anonymous package containing what appears to be the computer code that ran Maryland's polls in 2004... The availability of the code — the written instructions that tell the machines what to do — is important because some computer scientists worry that the machines are vulnerable to malicious and virtually undetectable vote-switching software. An examination of the instructions would enable technology experts to identify flaws, but Diebold says the code is proprietary and does not allow public scrutiny of it."

Maryland's primary elections last month were ruined by procedural and tech problems. Maryland used Diebold machines, even though its Republican governor "lost faith" in them as early as February this year, with months to do something about it before Maryland relied on them in their elections.

The Diebold code was secret, and was used in 2002 even though illegally uncertified — even by private analysts under nondisclosure. Now that it's being "opened by force," the first concern from Diebold, the government, and the media is that it could be further exploited by crackers. What if the voting software were open from the beginning, so its security relied only on hard secrets (like passwords and keys), not mere obscurity, which can be destroyed by "leaks" like the one reported by the Sun? The system's reliability would be known, and probably more secure after thorough public review. How much damage does secret source code employed in public service have to cause before we require it to be opened before we buy it, before we base our government on it?

I'm not one to encourage industrial espionage, but this is the very mechanism of our Democracy we're talking about, so I don't feel conflicted. Voting is the core aspect of our Democratic Republic - in fact, it's what makes it a Democratic Republic. Why on earth do we have to trust a corporation with the life of our Republic? Why do we have to TRUST anyone?! Where are the patriots in this country! Where are the men and women in the long tradition of American radicalism that say "NO! I will not entrust my rights to my fellow man!" Human nature does not change!

The entire POINT of America is that we are a land of inalienable rights - not granted by government, but granted by our shared humanity and only guaranteed by government. Instead, we've become a land of snivelling cowards, begging for our inalienable human rights to be abridged in order to approach a phantom "safety" that, by definition, will never arrive. We have forsaken our heritage, and we are all besmirched by the shame of that cowardice.

If we have a revolution again in this country, we need only one manifesto: the discarded Constitution that I love so dearly.

(pause) I really don't get angry easily. Very few things in life have made me yell. But I love this country - the Great Republic - and I can feel the rage boiling inside me when I see how we are changing its fundamental character. If you attached an electromagnet to Jefferson's corpse, the rate at which he is spinning in his grave could power the eastern seaboard.

"Listen in on Terrorists..."

The primary defense the Administration and its defenders have used to rationalize the commission of years of violations of federal criminal laws is that typical calls made by average Americans are not monitored. "We aren't listening in on your call to Grandma Tilly in Philadelphia," the line went. "We're only listening in on terrorists, so the Democrats that oppose our violation of law only feel that way because they don't want to listen to terrorists' phone calls." Despicable logic, I know, even if it were true.

Unfortunately, it is not true that only "terrorists" are being spied on - or, at least, not for any sane definition of "terrorists." The ACLU has just received documents proving that the Defense Department has declared all sorts of political opponents "potential terrorists," and therefore deserving of clandestine, unlawful surveillance.

Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department's collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.

The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as "potential terrorist activity" events like a "Stop the War Now" rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.

The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.

(snip)

A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel.

Quakers, huh? Quakers are a threat to America? I believe the pacifism more or less precludes them being a threat to anyone, unless you equate dissent with threat. Oh wait... Democrats are routinely called traitors because they oppose Bush's pointless war. So, if the Quakers' dissent is a threat worthy of having their constitutional rights suspended, how can the Democrats expect their rights to be respected?

How can you be such a baby, to be threatened by words? Don't most people move past that hurdle in middle school? Why are conservatives so afraid?

Unitary Executive = Ignore the Congress and the Courts

Libertarian leaning Republicans can't bring themselves to believe what I tell them about the "Unitary Executive" theory of presidential power to which this Administration adheres, but the fact is that this theory informs all of the excesses and arrogation of power that Bush has enacted. If laws get in the way of this theory, they are broken, plain and simple. It reduces our Rule of Law Republic to tatters - not worth the paper on which the hallowed Constitution is written.

The President continues signing laws publicly and with fanfare, and then, in a dark room away from the cameras, he signs his own special version of the law - the only one he'll obey - that doesn't bear any resemblance to will of Congress. Separation of Powers be damned.

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department’s reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

The facets of the American governmental system that the President is questioning through his theory - that the Congress has any right whatsoever to regulate his execution of executive branch powers - have been well decided. The Supreme Court affirmed that Congress does have the power to regulate the discharge of Constitutional duties, even during wartime, back in the 1950's. You'd think the plain language of the Constitution would have been enough:

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article 2, Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article 2, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ... he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...

Hell, Hamdan v Rumsfeld reaffirmed that the Congress has the power to regulate the Executive just months ago, and yet we still are subjected to this march of Executive Power. It amounts to a violation of Bush's oath, an affront to the Constitution, and an assault on traditions that have made this the Land of the Free.

Ultimately, the 60% of Republicans that still support these programs do so only because we have a Republican President. They "Trust" him. But they, God's Own Party, should know that human nature hasn't changed. From the time of the Bible on, power has corrupted. Our Founding Fathers understood that:

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.

You just can't beat Jefferson. How can the Republican Party have drifted so far from our core political values? I suspect the answer is that they are terribly afraid, and so can't miss an opportunity to sacrifice liberty for a phantom "security" that will never arrive.

Warrantless Wiretapping Town Hall

This is a great webcast on the topic of the NSA warrantless spying on Americans case. The ACLU has a case pending in court, and has a page hosting the Town Hall meeting.

The guy 2nd from the left is Bruce Fein, who was the Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration. He's got impeccable Conservative and Republican credentials, and at this point, he's kinda fiery. I've watched him over the last year or so get more frustrated with the legal contortions the Bush Administration has been engaging in. With the advent of the warrantless spying case, he's pretty ticked. This is the kind of Republican I like, as a Libertarian Democrat (McCain need not apply).

There are a couple other people on the panel, but it's basically a Bruce Fein show, and it's spectacular. You can listen to all of it, but 13:32 and 25:18 is where I would begin if I were you.

"... will burn the Constitution"

There has been much to be disturbed about in the last 5 years. The events of September 11th still bring a tear to my eye, and the Iraq War still seems like a gigantic strategic error. As blogosphere readers, you hardly need a recitation of issues to be concerned about in today's political atmosphere.

But all of the corrupt policies of the Bush Administration or even American Deaths don't begin to terrify me the way some of our leaders talk about the consequences of the next terrorist attack. On Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition a number of months ago, Wolf had some general on talking about homeland security in the context of the newly disclosed NSA illegal spying program. Specifically, the general said that the most important thing was to protect our cities from nuclear attacks, because "as that city burned, the constitution would burn with it." He was of course implying that all of you namby-pamby Americans who are concerned about your civil liberties would have a lot more to be concerned about should another attack occur, so stop complaining and let us break the law to protect you. "You don't like what we're doing now, well just wait until you don't have any rights at all," he seemed to be saying.

This is a theme that's not constantly repeated, but rather seems to be on some longer lifecycle. It crops up a few times a year - "if there's another terrorist attack, the constitution will be torn up." WHY? So help me, this infuriates me. Why should a few civilian deaths rob me of my inalienable rights? Where do you draw the line? Will 100 civilians killed be enough to torch my constitution? 1000? 100,000? Emphatically, I say there is no line. There is no point at which I will give my consent.

In fact, there is a line, but it is one which I would cross going in the other direction. If the threat was real, I would gladly take up arms to protect my constitution. Let me make my position crystal clear: Our nation is great, but it is only great because of our constitution. The freedoms it guarantees are the only thing that has brought this nation to the pinnacle of exceptionalism it now occupies.

On September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left Constitution Hall he was asked what kind of government the newly forming nation was to have, "a monarchy or a republic?" "A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it." I fear that we are in danger of losing our Republic, because we are not keeping it. I love life, but I will fight and die to protect that noble document that seperates us from the savages, the Constitution of these United States.