“This authority includes entering an Alien Enemy’s residence to make an AEA apprehension where circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a signed Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal,” the memo continues. [More]
Here’s the memorandum. So, hyperbole that you’ll no doubt see aside, it’s not “any house.” But that aside, they don’t want us “second guessing” them if it’s the wrong house.
Government ignoring fundamental rights is nothing new– that sites like WoG even exist is testament enough to that. And using “terror” as the hook to spook the herd into acceptance of a heavy hand is also nothing new. You’ll notice Guantanamo is out of sight, out of mind, your average American couldn’t tell you what the FISA Court is, and “we” dutifully submit to TSA groping.
That’s despite the fact that those doing the spooking never found any yellow cake, let the 9/11 hijackers in and failed to follow up on intel, made a mess of Afghanistan…
So what do we do (and I realize I’m just free-style rambling the thoughts that come out)?
Do we call criminals terrorists? What door does that open to expand the classes of people who qualify? Another administration with such power would love to include you and me.
What kind of “circumstances render it impracticable to first obtain a… warrant”? Got legally defensible standards? Against the Fourth Amendment…? Beyond “exigent”…?
If it’s a real terror threat, what should “we” do? Say we’ve got a Jack Bauer scenario, where if the subject doesn’t talk, mass atrocities will be committed.
Do we listen to Sir Thomas More and give the Devil the benefit of law for our own safety’s sake? Or Clausewitz, who knew “Without public support, no war can be conducted successfully,” meaning if it takes Dresden and Hiroshima, so be it?
I don’t know how to untangle the damn mess, but respecting the Bill of Rights, avoiding foreign entanglements, and recognizing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State seem like good places to start.
Now: How far are we willing to go to make that happen?
[Via WiscoDave]
Consider for a moment the US/Russian “Mutually Assured Destruction” concept. While the opposing nuclear force might be too small to assure victory, it’s mere existence makes risky first moves unthinkable in most circumstances. Let’s call that “Dot Number One.”
Next lets consider the concept of a “fleet in being” as discussed by the founder of the modern US Navy, Admiral Mahan and others. A credible fleet, even while riding at anchor in its home port, is a force that cannot safely be ignored by any potential aggressor. Look at all the trouble that the Tirpitz caused the Royal Navy while merely sitting in a protected anchorage in a Norwegian fjord. Let’s call that “Dot Number Two.”
Now let’s connect our two dots, and extend the line further into the concept of a “well regulated militia.” The original concept as discussed by Josiah Quincy II, was for a force that could counter any attempt by a government to curtail the People’s inalienable rights.
Now let’s ask the question: would today’s government(s) behave any differently if such a force existed? In what what way would the BATFE, just to cite one example, act differently towards today’s gun owners? Would they stop and consider the possibility of a Lexington style event, and arrest a David Koresh quietly and out of the public view or go ahead with a grand standing Waco style raid regardless of the repercussions?
Just throwing that out there for thoughts and discussion.
Just don’t come back and say the today’s unorganized militia is that credible threat. Published after action reports from Appleseed shoots show that even Texans can’t dependably hit a man sized target at 100 yards without formal training. FedGov is well aware of our low marksmanship skills and, for that reason and others, don’t take what passes for a militia in today’s world as a serious threat.