Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Rights threat

January 1, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

In another example of why bipartisanship is a bad idea, the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is soon to be approved by Congress and affirmed by the White House. This legislation continues to grant military authorities the power to detain anyone (including citizens) labeled a “terrorist.” It is the most dangerous form of ignorance to think that acts such as these are intended to protect.

Our elected officials and the mainstream media continue to distract the public with flavor-of-the-month issues. Meanwhile, basic rights are being usurped by a federal government drunk on power and devoid of accountability. If you feel safer by surrendering your liberty, I suggest you take time to read the U.S. Constitution. Then resist those who see it as an obstacle to their goals.

Patrick Wilbur,

Lawrence

Comments

Ken Lassman 1 year, 8 months ago

"In another example of why bipartisanship is a bad idea...."

Wha? In what way does bipartisanship have to do with this bad idea? I can think of plenty of bad bills that were not bipartisan, and I can also think of great bills that were bipartisan and great bills that were not.

Bipartisanship has been largely absent and has led to political polarization in recent years. The lack of it is almost always a problem and at the state level we have seen what a lack of bipartisanship leads to if it sticks around too long.

1

JayCat_67 1 year, 8 months ago

When I first saw it, I took the bit about bipartisanship being a bad idea as sarcasm.

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 8 months ago

Great letter. Why are there so few comments? Was this on the memory shelf for a few days?

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 8 months ago

edit, Why are there zero on topic comments?

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 8 months ago

Big creepy money gets bipartisan support. What's conservative about legalizing the assassination of U.S citizens ? What is liberal about indefinite detention with no right to know what you are being held for? From Joey Buttafucco onward, it has been the practice of our media to focus on steroids in baseball over a Karl Rove scandal. We're told that Michael Jackson filled the news because that is what the people are interested in. That is a lie. The FISA bill scoots thru as we are warned of a War on Christmas. We the fooled are not totally to blame for our whacky ideas. Censorship is strong and organized.

4

Ken Lassman 1 year, 8 months ago

By trashing bipartisanship, you just alienated many of those who might be interested in hearing more about your issue. Too many folks have seen what the lack of bipartisanship and too much polarization has done to our political system, so by making a broad-brushed swipe at bipartisanship, most folks will read that and stop right there. You might consider separating these issues and stick your main point without tarring it with slanderous comments against bipartisanship if you want to have folks hear what you're trying to say..

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 8 months ago

Sorry, I apologize to the 4 or 5 people who might be interested in hearing more about "your" issue. I'm nearly certain that the point of this letter is the NDAA sailing through congress. The point is the erosion of Our Constitutional rights. When points are sticky, a popular deke is to complain about the tone or shrillness of the beef. Another popular diversion is to change topics. Bipartisanship is not the issue here. Is there a chance that you pulled a "most folks" and stopped right there.?

1

jafs 1 year, 8 months ago

"In another example of why bipartisanship is a bad idea,..."

From the LTE.

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 8 months ago

Is there a list for "Least Discussed" ?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

It comes down to which side you see yourself on. The majority in Congress who voted for this don't see their rights and freedoms being put at risk by this legislation, but they certainly see their lives of privilege being at risk if they can't take out the "bad guys" with really broad strokes, even if that takes out considerably more innocent than bad in the process.

5

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 8 months ago

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

1

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

A Marine has stepped up to the plate and written a stern letter to Sen. Diane Feinsein, informing her: "You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain." "I am not your subject,"; . "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant."

It's nice to see a Marine honor his oath to the Constitution.

1

jafs 1 year, 8 months ago

Odd.

We don't "serve" the military.

The military exists to "serve" the country, if anything.

2

Peacemaker452 1 year, 8 months ago

Please read the quote again. He said that he is not the servant of a member of Congress, she is the servant of the public, which the military is part of.

This is a true statement. He is right.

And BTW, service members are not your servants. They serve the county and most importantly the Constitution.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

Members of Congress and of the military are members of the public AND servants of the public. He was trying to make a distinction between himself and the Senator that doesn't exist.

"And BTW, service members are not your servants. They serve the county and most importantly the Constitution."

By definition, someone who serves is a servant, albeit not exactly with the same meaning as when it's used to refer to a domestic servant. And without people, the country and its constitution are meaningless concepts.

0

Peacemaker452 1 year, 8 months ago

I was going to try to have a discussion with you on this but let me skip to the end:

We will never agree on this subject so I will leave you with your opinion and I will keep mine.

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

It should be noted that the Marine is a former Marine and therefore a Citizen such as yourselves. But once a Marine, always a Marine. He apparently served honorably in Afghanistan and Iraq, and says he'll refuse to register his weapons as will most of the other 80 million gun owners in this country (if such legislation is passed).

The Constitution exists as the Supreme law of the land for all of the entire Government to follow. The Constitution is not a rule book for the Citizens to follow. It is a rule book FROM the Citizens to the Government, and the Constitution is the document that empowers, and establishes the Government, which power originated and came from the people. The laws from a legislature do not supersede or contradict the Constitution at any time, but are to be within it's bounds. Otherwise the power resides in the States or in the People.

The Marine is on good ground.

0

Charles L Bloss Jr 1 year, 8 months ago

I am much more concerned about losing my constitutional rights than bipartisanship. The marine who wrote to Feinstein, wrote a great letter and I fully agree with it.

1

bad_dog 1 year, 8 months ago

"The D is silent."

Hmm. That rule makes your second paragraph read like a speech impediment.

So is your user name pronounced Laus_EO or AO?

1

Ken Lassman 1 year, 8 months ago

Here's the vote breakdown: Voted for the bill: Jenkins, Yoder, Pompeo

Voted against the billl: Huelskamp

It's interesting that Heulskamp joined 86% of House Democrats in voting against the bill, in a true bipartisan effort. On the Senate side, their version passed in the waning days of the last session in December with only 14 votes against it, including our Sen. Roberts.

Now if I were you, if you truly care about these issues, instead of picking fights on the JW comments board, you should be thanking those legislators who voted against the bill this year and telling those legislators who voted for the bill that 1) you're disappointed in their vote; 2) you're telling your friends about the way they voted (and personally I'd throw in a sentence or two about how disturbing it was to watch them turn down funding recovery moneys for Hurricane Sandy and then turn around to support this legislation); and 3) how you're going to be watching closely on how they vote next year when it comes up to a vote again.

It may seem like a hopeless task, but reasonable persistence does make a difference to your legislators, at least part of the time.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.