With Liberty and Justice For All!

After reviewing the recent GOP National Security Debate it was alarming how easily the majority of the candidates would continue to give up liberty to attempt to increase their security. One of the most interesting topics was the Patriot Act and the views each candidate held on it.

Just how much liberty are people willing to trade in to be secure, or maybe more accurately, to allow themselves the illusion they are more secure? Maybe we need to ask ourselves how secure do we want to be in our privacy? Regardless of a person’s view it must be remembered by all that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the law, any law (or act) that violates it is null and void, including the Patriot Act.

Several of the candidates supported the idea that criminal acts and domestic warfare acts are separate. They need to be reminded that the Constitution does not say the rights it protects are only for U.S. citizens; rather it was intended to protect the rights of everyone on U.S. soil. Rights are not given to us by the government, they are given to us by our Creator and it is the duty of the government to secure those rights, not trade them in for “protection”. To say we are at war and that is grounds to violate the Constitution is ludicrous! The War on Terror is a war that is vague enough to encompass whatever the government wishes it to, it could be said to be similar to the War on Drugs. Does that mean to combat drug use we should ignore the Constitution for drug related crimes? (After all it would help law enforcement eliminate drug crimes.) Of course not!

With the exception of the honorable Ron Paul, each of the candidates have made it clear that it is acceptable to trade in liberty for security; and our current President is no different. Any politician who suggests you do not need *THAT* much liberty and attempts to convince you to give it up because after all you want to be safe is not to be trusted. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Notice how the founding fathers took care enough to specifically name liberty as an unalienable right and how liberty is actually related to true safety instead of one being traded for the other. Only when a society has liberty is it truly safe.


Power, once given to the government, is never reclaimed. The government will continue to provide a reason (or supposed threat) which supports its retaining of that power, and it will likely claim anyone who would suggest the government lay down those powers is a threat to the nation itself. The risk associated in having a truly free society is outweighed by the benefits of liberty, if we are “fighting for our freedom” and in order to fight we must give up our freedom, then the very act of fighting results in our defeat. Again if we temporarily give up our liberty now, we will never reclaim it. Supposedly the terrorist hate our freedom, well because we fear them so much we ourselves are eliminating our freedom, all they have to do is watch.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Government Assassination

With the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html ) there is some controversy regarding the legality of the U.S. government killing a U.S. citizen it deemed a terrorist without due process. The Constitution seems to address this issue.

U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3.1

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 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.”

U.S. Constitution 14^th Amendment Section 1

“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside. 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.”

First quote mentions “convicted”, typically being convicted involves a trial. Additionally al-Awlaki neither confessed in open court nor did two witnesses testify in any court (that I am aware of).

The second quote mentions “nor shall any state deprive any person of life… without due process of law”. The issue should be handled in a way that leaves no doubt to its legality. The U.S. should not worry about how close to the line of legal and illegal its actions are, instead when the situation involves the constitutional treatment of U.S. citizens, the U.S. government should ensure there is no doubt whatsoever its actions are constitutional.

So what would be a solution? The U.S. should attempt to capture the individual and bring him back to the U.S. to stand trial. If he is found guilty, he should be executed, consideration should be given to making the execution public, possibly a public hanging in downtown D.C. on the Capitol lawn, surrounded by the symbols of the very country he was convicted of committing treason against. Public execution like this could serve to deter others from committing similar acts, as it would for domestic crimes if applied more frequently; yet I digress. For a U.S. citizen that has committed treason against his country, death by missile is too good for him, rather the trial and execution should be publicized in order that the traitor must go through the humiliation and stress that would accompany such a trial; then after conviction the execution would see to it that he was just as dead.

When we combat a threat in an any-methods-necessary approach, we risk losing what makes us different than our enemies. In the combat of terrorism, we need to act in a manner which leaves no doubt we are behaving in a righteous manner. President Kennedy said: “There is little value to insuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.” Liberty and justice have always been traditions in this country, we must ensure their continued survival or risk losing all that is worth fighting for.