|June 9, 2012
John Aziz of Azizonomics notes that Rand Paul supports the destruction of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by supporting Mitt Romney:
Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim – without having to produce any evidence whatsoever – that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.
Aziz quotes Romney’s explicit support of the criminal NDAA:
Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.
The Fifth Amendment deserves to be cited:
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.
Neocons and conservatives would likely argue that we are currently at war and the detainment without trial of alleged members of al-Qaeda and other supposed terrorist groups is legal. But this underscores yet another violation of the Constitution – none of the conflicts initiated by the United States following the attacks of September 11, 2001, were official declarations of war under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and are thus illegal (and impeachable offenses).
The NDAA is probably the most egregious violation of the Constitution in the modern era. It was struck down by Judge Katherine Forrest.
Naomi Wolf notes:
Forrest asked repeatedly, in a variety of different ways, for the government attorneys to give her some assurance that the wording of section 1021 could not be used to arrest and detain people like the plaintiffs. Finally she asked for assurance that it could not be used to sweep up a hypothetical peaceful best-selling nonfiction writer who had written a hypothetical book criticizing US foreign policy, along lines that the Taliban might agree with. Again and again the two lawyers said directly that they could not, or would not, give her those assurances. In other words, this back-and-forth confirmed what people such as Glenn Greenwald, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the ACLU and others have been shouting about since January: the section was knowingly written in order to give the president these powers; and his lawyers were sent into that courtroom precisely to defeat the effort to challenge them. Forrest concluded: ”At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [section] 1021. Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.“
It is unfortunate to admit that if we ever have the chance to arrest and put on trial Obama, Romney (if he is elected) and others responsible for subverting the Constitution by enacting the NDAA and other laws, Rand Paul will be forced to stand in the docket with them as accused traitors.
As lamentable and sad is the fact that in order to clear his good name and prestige, Ron Paul will be obliged to denounce his own son.