Obama Wants To Take Away Your Rights Guaranteed By The U.S. Constitution In Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  (Also read Amendment VI, Rights to a fair trial.)

The publisher of the New York Times thinks there is a real chance such violation will take place.  Don't say you weren't warned, repeatedly!

March 2, 2012, 1:53 pm

"The War on Terrorism Comes Home

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

When Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act late last year, there was a debate over whether it had given the military the authority to arrest and detain non-citizens on American soil.
I thought it did. Some civil liberties lawyers disagreed. They argued that the NDAA was so unclear, so muddled, that judges would conclude it had not effectively granted the military new powers. We’ll have to wait for the courts to weigh in. But at least the debate is now closed regarding what Congress intended to do, and what the White House thought it did.

Earlier this week, the White House issued a set of “implementing procedures” for the NDAA, specifically the provisions requiring the F.B.I. to turn over suspected Qaeda terrorists to the military in certain cases.

The procedures amount to cascading waivers. These so narrow the conditions under which the Justice Department would yield custody of a prisoner that it seems unlikely to happen. And yet—by issuing rules on how and when it would allow military arrests, the administration sure is leaving the impression that it believes the authority exists.

I don’t know if the president’s rules are airtight, but they are good enough to have outraged Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte. They have accused the White House of undermining the new law–making clear, if it wasn’t already, that they think the NDAA broadened military power on American soil. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Senator Graham even said “The homeland is part of the battlefield. I want to make sure we have a legal system that understands the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war.”

It’s easy to believe that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Panetta and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon will prevent the military from operating as a police force (something the founders of this nation abhorred).

But I shudder to think what might have happened if President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had been handed that power. The rules the White House issued the other day can be revised or revoked by any future president. All of the Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, have made clear that they consider civil liberties secondary to security.

As if all of this weren’t bad enough, the White House failed to use this occasion to clarify the scope of the Authorization of Military Force, which Congress passed after the September 11^th attacks, and which President Bush used to launch the global war against terrorism. White House officials said they deliberately left that question unanswered, which at best is an abdication of responsibility.

More than 10 years after September 11^th, the American people still have no idea what limits exist on the power of the government, if any. And far too much still depends on who happens to occupy the Oval Office."

Wise old Ben Franklin said that anyone who would give up liberty for safety deserves neither.  He got that right!