History is wrought with examples of subjects of a government rebelling against their ruling tyrant, whether King, Emperor, Czar, Caesar, Ayatollah, or Secretary-General of the Politburo. When the tyrant, the dictator grows too overbearing, too oppressive, or too stingy with the goods, the serfs rebel. They rebel not against the rule of kings, but against the oppression of the current king. They cry out, not for freedom, but instead for an easing of their suffering.
The American War for Independence was different. The People fought for Citizenship, for Rights, for Liberty itself. They established the US Constitution, and guaranteed the Individual Rights of Citizens, in the Bill of Rights, given by God, not government, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.
What is the difference? The serfs are demanding the tyrant end his oppression, that he allow them a bit more food, or benefits, while Citizens refuse to allow the government to intrude in their Rights, which are equal to the leader of the government.
Many would pick and choose when they support one or another of the enumerated God-Given Rights, specifically protected in the Bill of Rights, but would deny others their other Rights, when they find them less appealling, or when denial of Rights is deemed expedient. The MSM is particularly frought with hypocritical claims to rights beyond those enumerated, while arguing against the Rights (2nd) of others.
The Boston Bombings provide the most recent example. A 1st year law school dropout could successfully prosecute the case. The evidence is overwhelming, and yet terrorism is not a charge, nor is murder. The excuse is that prosecutors are hedging their bets. They are saying it's not as open and shut a case as everyone that watched the news would note. They are claiming that by not charging the terrorist, now, with murder, they reserve the "right" of the government to charge him later. They point out that McVeigh was also not charged with terrorism, as if that is a reasonable fact. It is a fact, but it is wrong that he was not charged with terrorism, unless the US law defining terrorism as a crime was not yet written. In 1995, and now, my position was that McVeigh should have been tried by a Court Martial, with charges including Treason. He wanted to claim he was a Soldier, and he did in fact have time remaining on his Individual Ready Reserve contract. He should have faced a firing squad, of Soldiers.
In a much more difficult case, McVeigh was convicted for the murder of a handful of Federal Agents. There was no video of him placing the bomb. He was not caught red-handed throwing bombs. LE got lucky that his ideological idiocy convinced him to speed down a highway in a car with no license plate, and a pistol showing under his shirt. Still, he almost was released on the weapons charges. LE got lucky in 1995, because his ideologies told him that the Sheriff's Deputy that pulled him over was a "legitimate" authority figure.
He was not convicted for murdering dozens of kids, or other civilian employees of the government, or senior citizens at the Social Security Admin office. The Janet Reno "Justice" Department and Clinton Administration, had hedged its bets. It did not charge McVeigh with all the murders, because it wanted to reserve "its right" to put him on trial a 2nd time, if the first trial didn't convict him. McVeigh was put in the express line for executions, but his buddy and partner in the act of terrorism is still in the prison system. His buddy only got Life in Prison, and to date, no other prisoner has convicted him to death.
The Bill of Rights says the government has ONE chance to prove your guilt in a crime. It doesn't get to keep trying until it finds a jury that will agree with them. It doesn't get to keep you in jail, or keep you away from a source of income for years, while it keeps trying. It doesn't get to charge you with using an explosive now, and then the effects of that explosive later. It gets ONE chance, and you are presumed innocent, until they do. The jury on the other hand, can convict you of killing the Federal Agents, while finding you "not guilty" of killing the nurse killed by a piece of falling debris hours later.
The Boston Bombing case may very well demonstrate a need for "Immigration Reform," in a way Congress isn't currently discussing, but like it or not, Tsarnaev attained US Citizenship on 9/11/2012. He DOES have Rights, until and unless his citizenship is revoked. He IS an Islamist Terrorist, and it should not be difficult to prove that he perjured himself, under oath, when he swore loyalty to the US and the US Constitution, while acting as an agent of the enemy in attacking American civilians. We DO need to look at the means to prevent such enemies from attaining the shield of US Citizenship, but at the moment, we have an Islamist Terrorist who holds US Citizenship, that should be facing charges of terrorism, treason, murder, and more.
It may be politically expedient, and even popular, to keep putting him on trial, until the warranted death penalty is attained, but it would undermine the Rights of Every American Citizen, if we endorse that. Instead, we should charge him with everything we can in the Boston Bombing case. Throw the book at him. Prove it all. Give him 10 death penalties. The police shootouts may be a separate case, but the two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, and ALL the effects, as well as ALL of the charges from it, are ONE event, and one trial. Terrorism is a Federal charge, because it is an attack on the Nation, on the US Constitution, not just the individuals in the city of the attack.
If we wish to remain, or re-attain, Our position as Citizens, of Equal Rights to the man that presides over OUR govenrment, not serfs, subject to the dictates of the man who Rules our people, we MUST stand up for the Rights of Our Fellow Citizens, even when we find them despicable examples of evil that should have their lives snuffed out. If we wish remain, or re-attain, Liberty, we MUST protect each of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and we must send Representatives to Congress who uphold their oath to the Constitution, rather than those that pander to the lobbyists that pay their way to maintain their power of office. And at this point, I'd almost say that being a lawyer should be an automatic preclusion to office. Let lawyers argue the law in court, but they lack the ability to write in clear, concise, coherent language.
Stumble It!
