Analyst's note: This is critical follow-on to the recent article we posted regarding Assassination by U.S. President & other issues important to American citizenship. This absolutely must be considered as food for necessary additional thought, especially as it comes to the use of drones here within our United States. In the article The Panopticon State
[....] that the U.S. secretary of education, who doesn’t employ a single teacher, is the only education minister in the developed world with his own SWAT team: He used it to send 15 officers to kick down a door in Stockton, Calif., drag Kenneth Wright out onto the front lawn, and put him in handcuffs for six hours. Erroneously, as it turned out. But it was in connection with his estranged wife’s suspected fraudulent student-loan application, so you can’t be too careful. That the education bureaucracy of the Brokest Nation in History has its own Seal Team Six is ridiculous and offensive. Yet the citizenry don’t find it so: They accept it.
[....] In the Droneworld we have built for the war on terror, we can’t see the forest because we’re busy tracking every spindly sapling. When the same philosophy is applied on the home front, it will not be pretty.
A case is made for another course of action which allows us to to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and still achieve what COULD yet be needed with an Islamist enemy, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, now unrecognized, yet embedded not only in our country, but within far too many of our federal seats of power. See Treason: Big Time Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration of White House, DHS, DoS, Congress & Pentagon
Andrew C. McCarthy (the author of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy) points out that U.S. Constitution ".... tells us the outer limits of what is legitimate in all threat situations. To shackle our power to meet a threat, as Hamilton explained, is to put us in peril." The U.S. receives obligatory warning: Al-Qaida hit-squads coming. This at a time when our Federal Gov't is Preparing for U.S. Economic COLLAPSE & follow-on violence
Congress is only just beginning to understand the civilization jihad being waged against America from within. We are being defeated from within. Yet our leaders are imposing the very values promoted by our enemies. Sharia is totally misunderstood here in America. Some describe it as communism with a god. Read on and learn the nature of the insidious threats along with what can be done to counter them. We will either learn the easy way or the hard way the hands of the Islamists.
By way of a reminder [...] the Muslim Brotherhood's mission in America is "destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
New al Qaeda 'shocking' threat against U.S. Islam is NOT a religion of peace, as they they keep telling us. It is not and it has never been. Study the facts. Read the Quran, study the Sunna and Hadith from Islam’s own historical documents and find out for yourself why Islam is not what its apologists claim and, in fact, it is a menacing scourge. You need nothing more. Their very own sacred book and other records are your best proof to reason with Muslims and help them leave the fold.
Our own FBI is busy purging its training materials of all traces of truth about Islam and jihad Just for openers, American citizens and certainly our leaders must understand some of the basic tenets of Islam - for example:
- Abrogation [verses that come later in the Quran, chronologically (not necessarily sequentially), supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones. In effect, this results in the more moderate verses of the Meccan period being abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan verses. “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?” (Quran 2:106)],
- Under "taqiyya," It is permissible for a Muslim to lie, especially to non-Muslims, to safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam
- Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted, shariah. Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony
- Apostasy under the established ruling of shariah is that apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found.
- Understanding that jihad is warfare to spread Islam
- There is the belief that Islam is superior to every other culture, faith, government, and society and that it is ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate them. We must understand that in shariah law, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim.
- Antisemitism is intrinsic to shariah and is based on the genocidal behavior of Mohammed himself in wiping out the entire Jewish population of the Arabian Peninsula
- Shariah explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men
- We must come to understand all these things and much, much more.
We must also understand our own Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Constitution ... not just read them once, but really understand.
Following this summary, I encourage you to read this original article in its entirety.
============================================
[....] After 20 years, we understand the particular conflict we are in. We can confidently say that, in the war authorized by Congress a dozen years ago, we do not need to use lethal military force inside our country.
You see, there is a right way to do what Senator Paul says he wants to do, a way that does not involve messing around with the Constitution in a manner we will come to regret. Contrary to Senator Paul’s assertions, and those of senators Cruz and Mike Lee, who lent their voices and scholarly heft to Paul’s filibuster, the Constitution does not prohibit the use of lethal force in the United States against American citizens who collude with the enemy.
American history and jurisprudence teach that American citizens who join the enemy may be treated as the enemy: captured without warrant, detained indefinitely without trial, interrogated without counsel, accused of war crimes without grand-jury proceedings, tried by military commission without the protections of civilian due process, and executed promptly after conviction. That is because these measures are permissible under the laws of war, and the Constitution accommodates the laws of war — they are the rule of law when Congress has authorized warfare.
Under the laws of war, enemy combatants may be subjected to lethal force — that’s usually the idea. It makes no sense to conclude that the Constitution abides all the aforementioned departures from peacetime due process but prohibits the killing of American enemy combatants . . . particularly when the proponents of this novel claim are quick to concede that the government is free to use lethal force against American enemy combatants once they leave our territory.
The Constitution enables the government to marshal all the might necessary, under any conceivable circumstances, to quell threats to the United States. The Framers, with a humility that contrasts sharply with our certitude, understood that some threats could be existential in nature. While the senators busied themselves during the Paul filibuster with Alice in Wonderland and “Stand with Rand” tweets, it might have been worthwhile for someone to read Hamilton’s trenchant observation (from Federalist 23) that
it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite; and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.
Heedlessly, Senator Paul and his supporters figure they have a handle on the infinite. We can safely assume, they tell us, that the Constitution bars attacks in the U.S. on Americans who — if you can follow this — appear to be non-combatants, even if they may be working with the enemy, as long as they are not engaged in “imminent” violence.
Really? Let’s imagine something that, unlike Senator Paul’s speculations, is actually foreseeable — a scenario based on the way our enemies function, as remote from the Washington debate as that may be. Let’s suppose we have an American scholar of Islam fulfilling the role of the Blind Sheikh — i.e., a jurist schooled in sharia with sufficient academic depth to be qualified to issue fatwas approving terrorist attacks.
[....] But that may not always be the case. We could have enemies with much greater capabilities, enemies including traitorous Americans. The fact that we do not appear to need lethal military force in the homeland in this conflict does not mean we will never need it.
[....] The goal, according to Senator Paul, is to shackle the president. That is done by trimming his sails in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), not by trimming his constitutional power.
[....] Why does it make a difference whether this curtailment comes from the AUMF rather than the Constitution? Because, absent a sudden-attack situation, the Constitution makes Congress the master of what force is lawfully authorized, while our tradition holds that the courts are masters of what the Constitution means.
[....] Since 2004, courts have made themselves a part of the national-security equation to an unprecedented degree. When challenged to construe constitutional doctrines, they seek to impose logic. Senator Paul’s proposal of a Constitution-based no-lethal-force exception to the principle that an American who joins the enemy may be treated like the enemy is not logical.
To iron out the inconsistencies, the courts may well conclude that if Americans are not to be treated as enemy combatants for purposes of lethal force, they should not be treated as enemy combatants for purposes of capture, detention, interrogation, and military war-crimes trials. Furthermore, if they follow the trajectory of the Supreme Court’s 2008 Boumediene decision, courts may well conclude that any core constitutional protections extended to American citizens must also be extended to alien enemy combatants. That would be the end of the law-of-war approach to counterterrorism. [....]
