Excercising Our Freedom of Speech

Forgive us, if tonight we opine.

We about spit out our coffee this morning, after reading an article that reported the following:

"Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use 'traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.'"

This applies to us bloggers.  In fact, it applies to this very blog.  It even applies to this very post.  Yes, the Feds are now authorized to spy on all media operations.  Not even Brian Williams is immune.  Heck, not even government officials making public statements are immune.

Ladies and gentlemen, Big Brother is now official.  Does this not yet confirm that we now live in a police state?

Historians, especially this historian, is not wont to opine on current events, as opinions themselves are neither history, nor history-making.  But anyone with even a minor understanding of the United States Constitution can see this as an infringment of the first amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."  This is not to say that we bloggers are about to be rounded up "for the sake of national security."  But it does provide all the information the Feds would need in order to accomplish such an end.  It also puts bona fide journalists, public officials, and otherwise innocent bloggers in a state of fear for saying anything that may be considered a potential threat to national security, all in the name of the "war on terror".  Hence, though our opinions here may not be history-making, this news most certainly is.

Although the United States is increasingly becoming a police state, this American blogger, for one, refuses to live in a state of fear.  Thus, now aware that the government has free access to our identity, and at risk of being classified and possibly arrested as "terrorists", we in this office hereby, and publicly, defy and refute all government efforts to limit our freedom of speech.  We have nothing to hide.  We are not terrorists.  Our conscience is clear, and our honor, our dignity, our integrity are intact.  We shall continue to report historical events such as this one, come hell or high water.  Come and get us.

So Much for the Bill of Rights

Every year since 1963, the United States Congress has taken it upon itself to specify the budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense, for the upcoming year, in what is known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  On December 15th, after much heated debate, Congress passed the bill for the 48th time, authorizing budget and expenditures for the year 2012.  On the 23rd, President Barack Obama signed it into law.

In this latest bill, however, there's a bit of a catch.

Under the section on "Counterterrorism" (Subtitle D), the law authorizes the "detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."  The AUMF, enacted in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by nations, organizations or persons."  This language is further clarified in the NDAA for 2012 to include, more specifically, "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerant act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

The reason why this, what is now being called the "indefinite detention" clause, was so hotly contested by Constitutionalist representatives in Congress, is that it makes no allowance for American citizens.  An amendment to exclude U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, but was rejected by Senate vote.  A later amendment that passed, clarifies that "nothing in the NDAA is intended to alter the government's current legal authority to detain prisoners captured in the war on terror," according to Politico.  Such authority, under the AUMF, includes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Under Congress' typically vague language, what this means is that not only can just about anyone, under current law, be considered a terrorist, but that anyone suspected of "belligerant acts" can now be legally arrested and detained, without trial, until the "war on terrorism" has ended.  No "war" has ever been officially or legally declared on "terrorism", yet its belligerants, even if they by American citizens, shall now be treated as prisoners of war.  By definition, this law puts all U.S. citizens under martial law, as it disregards the Bill of Rights, from which we have long had the impression that U.S. citizens were "innocent until proven guilty".

Few have the courage to speak out about this publically, but as Doctor, Congressman, and Presidential candidate Ron Paul explains, "the Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware."

Note that none of these laws mean that American citizens will inevitably suffer the consequences of the martial law established by them.  But, the point is that they could, as now it's all perfectly legal.  That's where the root of the issue lies.  That's what the Bill of Right was even for--to protect this stuff from happening.  But, these laws on "terrorism" effectively render the Bill of Rights null and void.