First They Came For The Terrorists... Thom Hartmann

[housewolf]

I apoligize if this is a duplicate, I browsed a few pages and didn't see it. This is such an excellent article that it deserves attention. It's a long article but please read it...

First They Came For The Terrorists...

The Gonzales confirmation is not just about the torture memos. It's much bigger than that.

<snip>

Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument supported by Alberto Gonzales.

<snip>

But President George W. Bush has not asked Congress for, and has not been granted, a suspension of habeas corpus for his so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" which he and his advisors have implied may last well beyond our lifetimes. Nonetheless, our President, with consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."

<snip>

The bigger question here is whether George W. Bush has the right to ignore the U.S. Constitution and international treaties, violate human rights and civil liberties, promote "preemptive" wars, and build concentration camps for the permanent imprisonment of untried and unconvicted individuals - all simply because he says he can, per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis. And whether we want the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the man who would be charged with prosecuting Bush or those in his administration who may break the law, to be a man who agrees that Bush stands above the law and the Constitution. The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded.

<snip>

The Democrats in Congress say they're going to confirm Judge Gonzales and "keep their powder dry" for future, larger battles like Supreme Court nominations. But as Pastor Niemöller reminds us, the loss of liberty is incremental, not sudden and dramatic. One either totally stands for republican democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law in our republic, or one doesn't.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-33.htm

[aquart]

1. CHARLES I???????????????

Please, you're kidding me. That can't be what Gonzales used, is it?

But, on the offchance it is, let me have the joy of pointing out what happened to Charles I: Headless.

Now, considering Iraq, would that be ironic?

Oh, and civil war.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Fantastic takeoff of Niemoller!!!!

First Bush and Gonzales came for the terrorists, but I was not a terrorist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the enemy combatants, but I was not a combatant, so I did not object. Then they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, but I was not a protestor and so I only voiced my unease.

If we - and our elected representatives - do not speak out now, loudly and forcefully, it may not be long before they come for the rest of us.

[shraby]

3. I just sent it to Sen. Feingold.

Send it to your senators.