BLAH ... BLAH ... BLAH ...

The beat goes amongst liberals who claim, ad nauseum, that by giving the federal government the powers it needs to defeat terrorism - we are somehow "mortgaging" our freedom or "morphing" ourselves into the kind of totalitarian government that we have always hated.

The most recent "fight for terrorist rights" comes from Great Britain's HARD LEFT news rag ... The Guardian ...

Blair can't be allowed to sell our rights and freedoms ...

You know, my main problem with people who write this kind of stuff is that they are normally, almost always, people who have never, ever, sacrificed an ounce to defend their country - or it's freedoms. They've really never done anything except pick up a pen to defend utopian democracy in the most extreme and melodramatic terms they can dream up. I'm sorry, this doesn't make them "great defenders" of the faith to me.

I'd like to dispute this myth that, by somehow SECURING our borders; by somehow - REALLY doing the things we need to do in order to catch the terrorists; by somehow - keeping terrorists detained at GITMO without charges - will somehow turn us into a Nazi state.

Who says? And what does HISTORY have to say about this?

In 1862 - President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus THROUGHOUT THE NATION. And he locked up - without charges - many "Copperhead" Democrats in the North who were merely "exercising" their right of free speech in opposing the civil war. Justice Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln was out of line in suspending Habeas Corpus. What did Lincoln do? He ignored him! And the military did too when they refused to release these Democrats after Taney's ruling. This was borderline military coup type stuff folks - Lincoln completely castrated the federal judiciary! And Habeas Corpus wasn't restored until the war was won.

Did this act by Lincoln turn the U.S. into a Nazi state? Or did it contribute to preserving the Union and doing justice to a portion of mankind that, up to that time, had been held in bondage in this country?

I submit it was the latter.

After Lincoln's assasination, the Federal government openly DISFRANCISED large groups of Southerners by removing their right to vote. Did this action turn the U.S. into a Nazi state - or did it help the newly freed slaves begin to gain a foothold of political equality amonst a population of white Southerners who were hostile to them having ANY rights whatsoever?

I submit it was the latter.

And I also submit that these actions, both of which were contrary to our Constitution and Bill of Rights - were absolutely indispensible in making this country the "sanctuary of freedom" that it is today. (And my Confederate ancestors must be rolling in their graves right now to hear me say all this but - God love 'em - I'm speaking the truth here - the Union HAD to be preserved.)

I'm not arguing here that we need to go out and LOOK for ways to violate people's rights. I'm only arguing that WE HAVE done MUCH WORSE in the past than we are doing now - and yet the dream of Democracy that is America - survives. In fact, I dare say that had we not taken a few drastic steps in drastic times - we may not have survived to this point.

Habeas Corpus shouldn't be suspended for an American citizen but - by cracky - the terrorists in GITMO are not citizens! Neither are they POW's! Lock them up - FOREVER - and throw away the key.

And if you need to use a little racial and religious "profiling" to catch the bad guys every now and then - DO IT!

And if you need to stop illegal immigration accross the border in order to ensure that terrorists don't squeak through with a nuclear or biological bomb - DO IT!

If you need to wiretap people in order to break up terror cells in this country - DO IT!

If you need to make a terrorist detainee wear a pink demi-bra in order to make him talk - DO IT!

Why are we even debating this trivial stuff and why are we even giving off the appearance of LISTENING to those who advocate otherwise?

Lincoln didn't.

And thank goodness.