Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift!
Throughout my lifetime, Democrats have ideologically defended civil liberties and have raised opposition to the power of the state interfering in the lives of Americans. Groups like the ACLU have consistently defended Constitutional rights of Americans to protest and engage in free assembly and to be free of government intrusion. Of course, their concern for religious freedom has often been muted because of their own biases, but overall, they have supported liberty. This has also applied to American military involvement and the Constitutional rights of even convicted criminals. Liberals were not always consistent in the application of these rights, but they could be counted on to at least raise a fuss if they sense any kind of Executive overreach.
Those days are gone, at least for now.
Senator Rand Paul in his filibuster last night on the potential use of Drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens who are not engaging in active attack against the United States exposed the ideological collapse of the Democratic Party when it comes to the Constitution and the basic rights of citizens. Democrats used to be counted on to oppose abuse of power, at least to a degree.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial for an accused person:
“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 offense 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.”
The basic idea here is that if someone is suspected of engaging in illegal activity, they should be arrested and indicted and face a fair trial. Of course, if someone is actively attacking someone else or is an immediate threat, then they can be stopped with deadly force. But, that is not what Rand Paul was opposing. He was opposing the idea that a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil could be taken out with a Drone strike (or perhaps a sniper or a any other attack) without an attempt at arrest and due process. He tried to get some kind of affirmation from President Obama’s administration that that would not happen and was relatively unsuccessful.
Here is the larger issue: Democrats have completely capitulated to a desire for power and have abandoned any defense of liberty that used to motivate them. What is exposed here is a callous disregard for the Constitution and the rights of the people to protect them against the abuse of government. They have done this because they trust themselves and President Obama to wield this power ethically. Ok. Fair enough. Perhaps he will. We tend to trust ourselves and our friends. But, how would they feel if a Republican were pushing for these kinds of powers on U.S. soil? How did they feel about Bush’s use of Gitmo and waterboarding? Of almost anything that he did? What about the next president? Can he be trusted to do the right thing?
Replace Obama with Bush or a future Republican and ask what the reaction from Democrats would be? My guess is that they would vehemently oppose what is being promoted and what is possible the same way that Rand Paul is. Actually, I am sure of it. And, that hypocrisy demonstrates the complete ideological collapse of the Democratic Party on the issue of civil liberties and it shows that they have now sacrificed principle for power. When that kind of exchange takes place, the person/party has nothing left to offer anyone but a call to “trust me” and a grasping for even more power.
The real reason that Republicans and Democrats can no longer work together is because neither party really believes in anything other than their own self promotion and grasping of power to use as they see fit. There are no longer any “truths” that are worth defending or fighting for that transcend political expediency. Take any calls for Medicare/Social Security reform. There is no political will to do that because it might cause whoever proposes it to lose power as people wanting those benefits now to turn against them in the short term. But, true concern for senior citizens would cause someone to try and save the system for the long term instead of letting it collapse under is own weight.
Or, consider reform in social and Welfare programs. True concern for the poor would look at some of the systemic causes of poverty and would be willing to consider if government dependence over generations is actually doing more harm than good and is actually trapping people in poverty. So, reform of the system could be considered to actually be a help to people over the long term by helping move them to self-sufficiency and into wealth creation. That would show true concern and care about the poor. But, we see people on both sides defending a system that perpetuates the problem instead of actually addressing the problem.
One might also consider U.S. foreign policy and the use of military force around the world. An interventionist policy that seeks to remake the world in America’s image and according to America’s goals seems to guide the use of the American military. It also leads us into endless war all over the world. Some want to cut the military but do not want to address the goals of U.S. foreign policy. Is this policy sustainable? Can we continue to carry it out? What about the cost? Because we don’t have any real guiding ideology that is thought out, we end up grasping at power and control instead of considering the long-term effects and how we can pay for it. The truth is that we are over $16 Trillion in debt and that debt will reach $20 Trillion by the end of Obama’s second term. Clearly this course is not sustainable, but we cannot discuss any alternatives because too many will lose power if they cut anything. We greatly fear not being able to control everything but is our continued control sustainable long term? Something has got to give.
The Drone debate is one that should be a bipartisan affirmation of the rights of Americans while seeking real, Constitutional solutions to our security challenges. But, we don’t have those discussions anymore because every player is just jockeying for power over and against the other. If a Republican is the Oval Office, conservatives defend everything he does and liberals attack everything he does. If a Democrat is in office, the sides switch. There is no allegiance to truth – only to power and who holds it.
Much has been written about the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Republican Party over the past few years culminating in Obama’s defeat of Romney in November, and there is merit in that argument. But, the Democratic Party is just as intellectually bankrupt and this episode proves it. They have power right now and they have come together to secure it and promote it further. That is it. That’s all. Liberals in the 1980’s would have opposed the current erosion of Constitutional rights that is taking place right now. But, that defense of civil liberty has taken a backseat to holding on to power and grasping after more of it. They are proving what their main goal is and this power grab will be their ultimate undoing.
This debate is another example of what the erosion of transcendent truth has brought to America. We cannot have consistent discussions anymore. We cannot come to agreement or even understand our disagreements because there is no consistency regarding what people really believe. Our beliefs change according to what we think benefits us in the moment and helps to enhance our position – they do not reflect any sense of what we think is “right.” Look at the mainstream media reaction to Paul’s filibuster. It is either ignored or it was largely mocked.
The Bible talks about this state of affairs in Isaiah 59 when it says, “So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14 NIV).
A people who cannot agree on who can be killed or attacked or whether or not a trial is available to them or whether a noncombatant is innocent until proven guilty is a people that can no longer discern right from wrong. That is where we are. That is where Democrats are. It is also where a large number of Republicans are.
The Moral Collapse of America affects everything.
Alan,
While I agree with the principle of what Paul did, I can’t let his party off the hook either. Over decade ago scared, over zealous, and possibly power hungry politicians (and dare I say the President at the time – Bush) pushed and passed the Patriot Act on its citizens that were so shocked over 9/11 that they didn’t realize how much of the Constitution the Patriot Act stepped all over.
While it might be one thing to remove freedoms during a time of war, remember that Congress never declared war (a Constitutional must).
A short list of Constitutional Freedoms the Patriot Act destroys
– Ability of the government to perform searches and phone-taps without court order
– Ability to jail Americans indefinitely without trial
– Ability to monitor religious organizations without suspicion of criminal behavior
– Ability to listen in on attorney/client conversations
These are just a few examples. So, while I agree and applaud Rand Paul for standing up here, I would applaud even more if he would call out his own party for the Patriot Act and the abuses of Homeland Security.
It is simply amazing how much Orwellian control people are comfortable with.
Rand Paul has stood with his father several times in condemnation of the Patriot Act and more recently the National Defense Authoization Act (NDAA).
Paul is the nearest thing to a pure constitutionalist we have right now. And John McCain and Ms. Lindsay Graham are trying their best to end this libertarian streak in the GOP.
Nate, I have lots of criticism for the Republican Party in all of this, but in this post, I took on Democrats who have betrayed many of their own values here. But, yes, you are right. We can talk about the Iraq War and bombing countries we are not at war with currently and on and on as well as the Patriot Act and other things. That is a good discussion. But, for a blog post, I just focused on what is happening now.
“…Democrats who have betrayed many of their own values…”
Which makes me suspect that the values they tout are not their true values.
What Nate said.
When Bill Clinton proposed the first version of the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City bombings, movement conservatives united to defeat it. But when George W. Bush proposed the second, far more expansive and scary version (because of the improved technology AND a bunch of civil liberties that weren’t in the first one) conservatives didn’t say a thing. There was a ton of things in the Patriot Act that could easily be used against any conservative Christian group that gets labeled a hate group because of their stance on homosexuality or Islam, and conservative Christians didn’t say a thing. Really, all Obama is doing here is taking the Patriot Act and other measures implemented by Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, etc. to their logical conclusions. If anything, complaining now is a bit hollow because all this represents is a minor expansion of what the Bush administration did. Of course, this is crossing a line, but the previous administration took us to that line, and any subsequent administration could have crossed it. And please note that none of the GOP candidates for president … Romney, Gingrich, etc. made this a campaign issue even though this has been a known issue for years. So all evidence points to their likely continuing it, which makes it not a partisan issue.
On this issue and a host of others, the Republicans are no better. They say that they are, but they aren’t. They claim to be pro-life but rarely actually enact meaningful pro-life legislation (except in a few states like North Dakota, Mississippi and Arkansas) and appoint tons of pro-abortion judges to state supreme courts and the federal courts who help overturn what few pro-life laws that get enacted on the state level. Republicans are also increasingly supportive of gay marriage and other liberal social issues, including the Republican judicial appointees that have helped give the left margins of victories on gay rights and other issues for decades. Also, the GOP doesn’t do squat for religious freedom and Christian persecution in domestic or international arenas. They claim to but haven’t. Christians were being slaughtered all over the world for decades by Marxists and Muslims and the GOP didn’t lift a finger, but instead we arm Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, we send Marines to get killed in Lebanon for reasons that no one can still explain, we invade Iraq twice and Afghanistan once to get rid of regimes that we armed and helped put in power, and for what? Certainly not to help Christians, because the Christians in that region are worse off now than they were before … Christian communities that had been in that area of the world since the times of the early church. If it isn’t our job or foreign policy to help Christians, then why are we involved overseas with all those military bases and troops and foreign aid to begin with? Christians elect Republicans to build bases in place like Saudi Arabia protect a regime that sponsors terror attacks and trains anti-Christian radicals all over the world. Or we consider Pakistan, who sheltered Obama for years and offers no religious freedom to Christians and is the sworn enemy of India, who does and has millions of Christians that could use our support, an ally and give them financial and military aid. What sense does that make? The Cold War is long over, and we still provide all this military and foreign aid to regimes that hate and persecute Christians, and not to mention we host and fund a United Nations that promotes an anti-Christian agenda all over the world, including a children’s rights resolution that makes homeschooling and Christian private schooling illegal (not U.S. law YET but has been adopted in many countries). Instead of trying to curtail the U.N.’s power, George W. Bush goes there to cajole it for permission to invade Iraq because God told him to do it. (Seriously, Bush claimed that God told him to invade Iraq. The same God that Bush believes offers Muslims, Jews and all good people a path to heaven, and provided us with a Bible that isn’t literally true but is a great source of moral teachings. Talk about double standards … had Obama said those things, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, that Jesus Christ was merely a philosopher and God told him to lead a military campaign to free a Muslim nation, and the Bible wasn’t literally true and evangelical Christians and other conservatives would have absolutely freaked out. But Bush made statements on his personal religious belief that were to the left of Obama, Clinton and Carter and was counted as an evangelical.)
I went from being a Democrat to a GOPer because of social and religious freedom issues, and I stopped supporting the GOP and now don’t support either party because of those same issues. Both parties represent two sides of the same coin. The trick is getting people to think otherwise, and we go along with the trick because we have so much invested in it.
Job
You speak the truth.
“Here is the larger issue: Democrats have completely capitulated to a desire for power and have abandoned any defense of liberty that used to motivate them.”
On the bright side, at least they’ve come out of the closet.
“The Moral Collapse of America affects everything.”
Abortion and the promotional push for same-sex marriage are two bad fruits of this moral collapse.
Very good post.
Alan,
With me being a Republican, and living in Kentucky, I can tell you that
Rand Paul just wants to make a name for himself. We had the Drones under George Bush and it was all praise because we had such a wepon
to save American lives.
I don’t know of a single place on American soil that a Drone has been used to kill Americans. As far as a right to a fair trial, our police officers kill criminals all the time with no trial. If a terriorist is trying to kill our people on American soil, it wouldn’t make any difference if they were a citizen or not, they need taken out by any means possible.
Alan, this is all politics and stall tactics. Mitch McConell almost lost the race last time. He will be defeated this time by Ashley Judd. If Rand Paul
continues his pact with the Tea Party it will not be long before he is out of office.
Sometimes, I think prejudice is governing the Republican party. All I want is truth from both parties, which may never happen. LOL.
All liars will have their part in the lake of fire. Wait a minute! Who will be left to run the country?
Rand Paul, LOL
Jess,
Yes, we may have had drones under Bush, but that’s not the issue, and you’re missing the point. The point is that Obama now has the POWER to kill Americans on US soil, without due process of law. Obama is shredding the Constitution in this matter. That’s the point….not that we had drones.
Also, I’m not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican…I’m an Indepent, Conservative in my politics….but, to say that the Republican Party is being run by prejudice is silly. I’m sorry, but I just have to say it….silly.
At least Rand Paul is a MAN. Washington needs more MEN and WOMEN, who’ll stand.
David
VOL, where does THIS come from?
” The point is that Obama now has the POWER to kill Americans on US soil, without due process of law.”
Christiane,
The POTUS claims he has the authority to kill Americans on US soil….and can use drones to do it…..
That’s what the filibuster was all about….
David
thanks for responding, VOL
Hi VOL
I did find this, but I don’t know if it is ‘genuine’ or not:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/holderletter.pdf
Lets see how much you advocate “any means possible” when hard-line secularism says YOU are the Enemy of the State with you semi-fundamentalist belief system.
Jesus was condemned as and enemy of the state any you should expect the same treatment. A student’s heat signature is not greater than his masters.
Adam G. & Volfan007
Statements such as yours is exactly what I expect from the farrrr….
right. If you notice, I said I just want the truth. Do we let our guard down and allow another 9-11? I’m curious, what would you do if
we had some terrorist on our soil wanting to use a dirty bomb that
could explode any second? How many hi-jackings have we had lately?
Our government is in place to protect us. We have elected officials in Washington DC.
I’m not saying I have the answers, I’m far from having the answers.
All I’m saying is that we need to look beyond politics and try to search out the truth.
If this hypothetical terrorist is an american citizen like you and me, then I’d say try to arrest him and then interrogate him for more info.
If he’s ACTIVELY shooting up a mall, then put him down.
Some folks think that the rules of war now apply to the US homeland and thus justifies suspension of the Bill of Rights. This is why someone line Miss Lindsay Graham can say on the senate floor, that if someone asks for a lawyer you tell them to “Shut up”.
THAT is the suspension of due process.
What you say is exactly what I would expect from Big Government statists from the right AND left
Adam G,
LOL, at least we agree on Miss Lindsay Graham.
Hard line secularism! Do you mean as in our Constitution?
No, IF you read it, you’ll notice that it has this section called the First Amendment which guarantees an idea called “free exercise of religion”.
Not sure how you could compare this to the “hard line secularism” that we see beginning to manifest itself today in our government.
Alan,
Everything you have mentioned was carried over from the Bush era.
Its not fair to say the Democrats are letting us down. Shucks, they never did ride a moral high horse, and they didn’t lie about it.
You do not seem to be understanding the point that Alan is trying to make.
Nate, Job, and Jess,
Never once did I praise or defend Republicans. Democrats are in power. I am talking about them. This was not supposed to be there thing, remember? It seems that it is after all.
Now, can we go on and call for truth from this point on? Or are we forever paralyzed because Bush passed the Patriot Act? Maybe we have learned?
Alan, I said I didn’t disagree with what Rand Paul has done, and I never said that you were praising or defending Republicans.
But this (drones) is just another example in a long line of laws passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the President that have removed our Constitutional rights. Notice I didn’t state party, the US Congress and the US President did these things current and past. But Drones attacks inside the United States are far less likely than what has already been done by Homeland Security using the Patriot Act to suppress our Constitutional Rights.
The bible says to put your own house in order (or to get the log out of your own eye) before you go after another. I’m a conservative and I voted for Paul (I live in KY), but if he is going to filibuster anything he should clean his own party’s crimes before he starts in on Obama’s.
If he did that, perhaps those across the aisle might actually believe him to be for Americans and not simply for Republicans.
the Senate is not like the House. It is the place where back-room-deals are the standard and you have to “pay to play” just to have some “pull”. It’s a lot easier to be a radical in the House.
Dont forget that Paul is loathed by many of the neo-conservative establishment in the GOP. McCain and Miss Lindsay Graham were at him pretty hard today…as they usually are when anyone tries to undermine their idea of the police state.
Paul was also one of only EIGHT people to vote against sending fighter planes to the Salafist Egyptian government. EIGHT?! That’s hardly party-line voting.
Alan,
I was just looking at the Patroit Act, there is alot of stuff in it. What do you think needs to be done. The reason I began defending the Democrat party
earlier was because of your title. I just wanted the whole truth to come out. Great Post.
Alan, you and I have disagreed on some things in the past, but on this post, and these thoughts, we completely agree. Thanks for penning these words.
I am so concerned about the future of America, and what my children and grandchildren are gonna have to live in….I am very concerned that persecution is just around the corner for Believers. I can almost hear the wives crying for their husbands, and the children wondering Daddy is.
Come, Lord Jesus!
David
that should read “wondering WHERE Daddy is.”
The thing I fear most is if I will have to hear Dave Miller bemoan the fact that people like Rand Paul for the next few decades like he did with Ron Paul! 😉
I kid, Dave, I kid… I believe you will one day see the light. 🙂
Rand Paul seems a little less nutty than his dad is. We’ll see. Just from what I have seen, I could envision voting for Rand. I could never have voted for Ron Paul for president – I love my country too much.
Dave, do you remember the South Carolina Republican Debate where Ron Paul advocated Augustine and Just War theory and quoted the “Golden Rule” regarding foreign policy? I do, and I remember the audience booing him. Should I rewind the tape and look for a lime green suit in the crowd?
Only from someone that lives in Iowa.
Perhaps some of you will begin to understand why I live on Costa Rican soil.
Randy, unfortunately that means the current US Government policy allows you to be executed without trial or representation if you are deemed a threat. And that includes if what you are preaching is deemed threatening: see what happened in Yemen to an American Muslim who was preaching but not arming terrorists. Or training them. He was simply blown up as he went through his daily routine.
And it was done because of his religious beliefs. Most Americans didn’t care that much because we don’t like that batch of religious beliefs. But the principle is dangerous: the Attorney General of the US, the President, and the Congress have all effectively agreed that a person preaching a religion deemed a threat can be executed without trial.
where does THIS come from?
please, if you can, give references . . . thanks
“the Attorney General of the US, the President, and the Congress have all effectively agreed that a person preaching a religion deemed a threat can be executed without trial”
The good news is that God has not forgotten his people. We seek comfort in this world, but we are not of this world. There is no comfort this world has to offer when our goal is to proclaim the work of Christ on the cross to lost people and prepare them for eternal life with Christ. For such we were, and we ourselves are yet to find our rest there and not here.
Jim Pemberton,
Sir, you couldn’t have said it any better. God bless you. If we all understood this, we wouldn’t all be jumping up and down
worried about things that may never happen.
Jess,
The very fact that it CAN happen is what is upsetting us. This attitude of just throwing the Constitution to the wind is what’s the upsetting part.
David
VolFan007
Was it against the constitution when the government went after David Koresh, if this is how you spell his last name. The cult leader down in Texas, Maybe 25 years ago.
Actually, the anniversary was just a week or so ago. 20 years ago ATF confronted David Koresh there at his compound about 15-20 miles outside of Waco. I used to take friends and family out to the compound to show them around. There were redtips and a plaque for each person who died that day.
New ownership came in and ripped up the redtips and plaques and now the land is blocked off to the public. For whatever reason, no city or county officials came in and took over the land in the aftermath. Folks who are still connected to the Davidians own the land (they are anti-Koresh).
For another Waco connection to this post….Rand Paul is actually a former Baylor Bear. He’s not an alum. Somehow he managed to never graduate but go straight from Baylor undergrad to Duke Medical school. Rand was a member of Baylor’s secret society known as the NoZe Brotherhood. I think Rand would have been at Baylor a just a handful of years before the esteemed Bart Barber.
Jess,
What does Koresh have to do with this?
David
volfan007,
Answer my question then I will answer yours.
Have we lost the ability to carry on a decent conversation?
And its not even a Calvinism post. Might need to ban all Rand Paul articles
Jess,
The reason for my question is that I dont understand your question. I’d be glad to answer it, if I knew what you were asking. Again, what in the world does David Koresh have to do with the President being able to kill US citizens without due process of law?
I’m will take a wild guess, and say that you’re asking if it was okay to kill Koresh? Although, I’m having a hard time understanding why you’d bring Koresh up, here. But, of course, it was wrong for the US to kill all of those people…even though they were a cult.
David
Yes. Not sure how all those children posed an imminent threat to public safety.
Flammable CS gas plus a candle equals a big fire. No evidence that they burned themselves up. There is evidence that CS gas can burn a house to the ground (Cop-killer Dorner’s cabin)
The children weren’t an imminent threat – Koresh was. I’d say the government has a very very compelling interest in stopping widespread sexual abuse whether in a secular setting or on a religious compound out in the middle of nowhere.
No evidence there either, just more media hearsay.
BDW,
Sir, I agree with you. There are some folks thinking the government is going to use Drones on us for preaching.
I do think the govt. had the right and the authority to arrest Koresh, if he was raping those girls. And, if he resisted, then, of course, they had the right to go in and get him…by force.
But, to kill US cititzens on American soil without due process of law is a whole nother matter.
David
Jess, did you know that murder of citizens by their own government was the #1 killer of the 20th century? They thought it may never happen just like you.
People who think government is inherently benevolent dont read their history, they just watch the news.
Adam,
Folks thought the same thing when they came out with vaccines for all those dreaded diseases.
Adam G,
Apparantly the framers of the Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution didn’t believe government was benevolent since they thought we should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against it.
Adam,
Sir, I’m talking about our government, and the use of Drones on our citizens while on our soil, as far as I know it has not happened.
If there were to be a proven terrist group on our soil, there would be no difference in using a tank or a drone. Take them out!….
I am still a little confused. Has anyone answered Christiane’s question? Where did this come from? “The point is that Obama now has the POWER to kill Americans on US soil, without due process of law.”
volfan said, “The POTUS claims he has the authority to kill Americans on US soil….and can use drones to do it…..That’s what the filibuster was all about”
Christiane provided a copy of a letter that has been reported in all major news organizations saying he does not. Can volfan or Alan provide the quote from Obama saying he can kill American citizens in the U.S. with drones?
David Miller said, “You do not seem to be understanding the point that Alan is trying to make.” David was the point Alan was trying to make that Obama is claiming to be able to kill Americans on American soil using drones? If so where and when did he say or imply that? His AG seems to be saying that he cannot do that.
Rand Paul seems to be using the old argument, “prove you are not beating your wife.” You have to prove a negative.
Christiane also asked about Doug Hibbard’s statement that the Attorney General of the US, the President, and the Congress have all effectively agreed that a person preaching a religion deemed a threat can be executed without trial. He was referring to Awlaki an American born Al Qaida terriost who was killed not for preaching a religion deemed a threat but for plotting and directing terror plots against Americans. This attack was applauded by leaders of both parties. To say the president and congress agreed that person preaching a religion deemed a threat can be executed without trial is a stretch. Killing Awlaki almost certainly saved American lives so it should be called self defense.
Killing an unarmed person who is not actively taking part in military actions is not self-defense.
That was an American citizen who was practicing his religion. A religion I do not agree with, but that was what he was doing.
What happens when it’s not Islam but Christianity that is considered a threat? Can you drop bombs on preachers because you think they are encouraging people to be a threat? Should a preacher that Timothy McVeigh once listened to be a legitimate target without a trial? How about the Branch Davidian cult in Waco? Randy Weaver’s pastor in Montana?
The federal government has together decided that the Administration can kill you, whether there has been a trial or not. As long as you are ‘threatening’ and not in the US.
The principle there ought to be frightening to every last one of us.
Doug, how do you know he was not armed?
Awlaki was no more killed for preaching a religion deemed a threat to us than Osama Bin Laden was. He said all Ameicans were devil worshipers and deserved to be put to death. He was directly involved in planning terroist operations that resulted in the death of Americans. If killing him was exposed the idealogical collapse of the democratic party, good for them.
Ron West,
Thank you for the truth.