How did the Iraq War affect civil liberties and RKBA?

[bountyhunter]

Is there a RKBA or civil livberties issue here?

Is there a RKBA or civil livberties issue here?

Coronach


Yes, but if you lock the thread in a post where you ask a question, it makes it hard to provide the answer.

There are a number of threats to our civil liberties inherent in the Iraq war... some obvious, some subtle.

1) The initiation of the war was clearly an end run around the constitution, wherein the president announced there was going to be war and then started wielding a big stick to beat his opponents in the house and senate into compliance by labeling anybody against him as a terror lover. Using this, he basically wiped out the concept of checks and balances whereby the congress was given sole power to take this country to war. The cowards in congress share the blame, for their spines collapsed like wet cardboard when confronted with this.

2) The new "laws" passed to enable us to win the war on terror and in the process, surrender most of our freedoms to the central government. You have US citizens being held indefinitely in prison, charged with no crime, and denied any contact with family or even a lawyer for "national security". God help us all.

3) strangling of the media. The use of "embedded reporters" was the single best method ever devised to assure completely biased coverage of the war. Only "friendly" news agencies would be offered ambedded positions, and those reporters would be allowed to only see what they wanted them to. And make no mistake: there is no graver threat to liberty than a government who can muzzle the free press.

4) Organization and retaliation. It was disgusting to watch as anybody who voiced opinions against the war was systematically attacked, up to and including posting addresses and phone numbers on the internet and organizing boycotts to destroy their businesses. This may be the most shameful of all, because it means we have a generation of people who have no clue what the concept of free speech means. They seem to think that anyone who has a contrary opinion must be destroyed.... which is a logic that would fit in very nicely in bahgdad.

So, are there any threats to civil liberties in the Iraq war venture?

 

[Don Gwinn]

This sounds like you hit "new post" when you meant "reply." It doesn't make a lot of sense without the thread to which it belongs. I'm going to edit the title to reflect what this thread is really about.

Then, against my better judgment, I'm going to leave the thread open and hope that it continues to be a civil discussion of whether or how the war in Iraq affected civil liberties and RKBA at home. Please don't make me regret this act of faith.

Next name-calling or gratuitous dig at a moderator will close it. We're well aware that THR is going through some growing pains. We're working on it. No need to call out moderators, as THR doesn't allow "call out" threads for anybody.

 

[Balog]

Uhhh, any links to the thread(s) this refers to?

 

[Mark Tyson]

The initiation of the war was clearly an end run around the constitution,

Maybe, but remember that under the War Powers Act, congress authorized the president to deploy troops without a declaration of war when there is specific congressional approval to that effect. I think that requirement was fulfilled.

The laws passed in the war on terror are not directly tied to the Iraq war in particular.

Embedded reporters are just a public relations tool. The military is trying to paint itself in a good light, just like every NGO, government agency in the world. There were plenty of reporters who didn't go the embed route. You can get your news from the BBC, the French media or Al Jaeera if you want differing opinions. It's up to us to be intelligent consumers of information.

Stifling of anti-war criticism should always be shouted down of course. You want lots of healthy debate and dissent.

 

[fallingblock]

No, not from the Iraq war.....

But there surely has been some serious bending of the Constitution and BoR with such measures as the "Patriot Act".

The Iraq war hopefully will achieve some of its objectives and lead to more stability in the Middle East.

The Patriot Act bodes ill for all of us, I fear, whatever our political persuasion.

 

[bountyhunter]

Maybe, but remember that under the War Powers Act, congress authorized the president to deploy troops without a declaration of war when there is specific congressional approval to that effect. I think that requirement was fulfilled.

I agree it was legally fulfilled. My point is that GWB managed to subvert the function of the government as it was intended to operate. I just wonder how many people perceived the shift away from what the Founders designed into our government: checks and balances. I wonder how many people realize just how dangerous that is.

The whole purpose of giving the power to wage war solely to the congress was to prevent a tyrant from waging war on his whim. Period. It was believed the congress would prevent this from happening.

Instead, what happened was many in congress initially spoke out against the war and then caved in. They were afraid they would look soft on terrorism if they did not vote for the war. They were also labeled as traitors and not supporting the troops if they didn't vote with Bush.

The upshot of the process was that the checks and balances broke when we needed it most. reasoned debate and examination of the evidence we had at the time would have shown what we now know: there was no reason to stampede into a war.

The laws passed in the war on terror are not directly tied to the Iraq war in particular.

NO. The war in Iraq is being packaged and sold as a spinoff of the "War on Terror" by the administration. Look at the new re-election ads being run that carry the theme: "Our president is fighting back against the people who attacked America and some people are attacking him for that."

It's an extension of the previous administration strategy to link Iraq to 9/11, except that since that has been publicy acknowledged as false by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the new tack is more subtle. Throw the "War on Terror" blanket over the whole region and say any action taken there is justified by it.... and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist lover.

The point is that the WOT is being used as a lever to steal your constitutional rights, and the Patriot act was the foot in the door. It has already been "enhanced" and it will be expanded further. And I guarantee you, eventually it will get to the guns. You and I may think armed citizens are a good idea, but the central government will eventaully admit they can not effectively ferret out who are "good citizens" and who are "potential problems" and they will deduce the solution is to disarm everybody.

This sounds like you hit "new post" when you meant "reply."

I would have replied within the original thread if it had not been locked. As I said in the first post of this thread:

"Yes, but if you lock the thread in a post where you ask a question, it makes it hard to provide the answer."

 

[fallingblock]

Sounds like a plan....

"Throw the "War on Terror" blanket over the whole region and say any action taken there is justified by it.... and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist lover."
************************************************************
It might just work !

 

[Don Gwinn]

Bountyhunter, I'm not sure you and I are on the same page. Mike's question was clearly rhetorical. It was a statement. He didn't see a connection to civil liberties or RKBA in the original thread. I didn't see it at all, so I won't comment on that.

When I say your thread "sounds" a certain way, that means I'm comparing it to something similar. This thread seemed to begin abruptly in the middle of a conversation, which is the same feeling you get when someone hits the New Thread button by accident.

I think this thread has gone well so far. Everybody have fun now; I'm off to bed.

 

[Solinvictus70]

Civil Liberties and Iraq

Well, at least in Iraq, they are allowed to own a select fire Kalashnikov with no incumbering registration process. :banghead: