Fluffy and Mikey, I see your difference but I think you're fighting the wrong war.




The human condition is to live and procreate. The State's condition is to preserve history. America, Rome, Mongolia, China, the Ottomans, etc. all have/had the same goals in mind. They fight to preserve the history of their civilizations. They fight other histories, they fight other countries that endanger their history. To go against the grain of what our country fought to instate in it's very beginning is to go against our history AND country at that point as a whole.

I'm not against it because the Patriot Act has made to law that any person can be suspected of terrorism. I'm not against it because of the terrible overstep of habeas corpus.I'm not even against it because of what our country did after the attacks on Pearl Harbor and during WWII. I'm against it because though our country made it founding law to house our troops during times of crisis, our founding fathers, our very history itself made it a point to deny unreasonable offense to any and all citizens. See amendments 7, 9, and 10. At MOST I can see the Coast Guard of any individual state stepping in to make arrests of suspected terrorists. Outside of that, they are still to be guaranteed a speedy, public, and just trial and that is inalienably guaranteed via amendments 7&9.

I have no problem with the military stepping in to protect our home front if war is brought to it, but to invoke martial law in order to halt the actions of few if it oversteps the bounds of all is a step too far. Our military is meant to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic. I respect that oath, but when our leaders become a domestic enemy of the constitution, the most worthy thing the military can do is remove them from office as promised in their oath.