There is No Legal Line Between Criminality and Terrorism

Kaye Beach

Dec 27, 2011

I about blew a gasket listening to Newt Gingrich explain back in November at a CNN National Security GOP Presidential Dabate that there is divide between criminal law and law used against terrorism.  There is not and I know this from reading hundreds of law enforcement, Homeland Security, FBI and legal documents.  The fact that there is no separation is plainly stated again and again since 9 11.  But Ben Swann from WXIX explains the truth of the matter far better than I ever could.

 

About these ads

4 responses to “There is No Legal Line Between Criminality and Terrorism

  1. Whoa….I think you may have misconstrued what Gingrich was trying to say. I took him to mean there is a difference between civilian law and military law regarding enemy combatants, especially foreign enemies. I thought what he said, since that was what I took from it, was exactly correct. The same laws should not apply in war to foreign combatants as those laws that apply to American citizens unless the American citizen can be proven to be an enemy (combatant or traitor). The question, I believe, was asked because of the ordered attack on the American combatant in Yemen…which confuses the entire rule of law on this matter for some. I believe an American on foreign soil who is openly plotting to kill Americans is a traitor and deserves the same treatment as any other enemy combatant. Or at least, historically speaking. I think Gingrich had this right. Paul did not agree with the killing of the guy in Yemen. Just sharing my understanding of the situation. Our leftist government is trying very hard to blur those distinctions and put wartime enemies under civilian laws…which I believe is a direct method of putting Americans at risk of being criminally prosecuted if they as much as dare disagree with the government. This is also connected to the neglect of congress and the President to declare war with a definitely described enemy. We now go to war with some vague term called “terrorism,” but don’t say who that is exactly. The entire set up is leading to a police state…as Ron Paul describes in the video. The Patriot Act is an abomination just as the recent National Defense Authorization Act is….both confusing war powers with civilian law. As usual, the leftists twist and mingle all the definitions of everything until no one knows the difference between civilian law and the laws of war. All of this is unnecessary, and further destroys the confidence of American citizens to defend our rights while conducting war. I think Gingrich was referring to the historical and common understanding of the laws of war. (not the confused nonsense we have now) I don’t think he was defending the Patriot Act. Just my take.

  2. BLITZER: Our leadoff question is from the honorable Ed Meese, the former attorney general of the United States, who is representing the Heritage Foundation.

    ED MEESE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists.

    Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?

    BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?

    GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.

    I think it’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it’s a matter of criminal law. But if you’re trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

    . . .BLITZER: So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn’t change the Patriot Act?

    GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. And I’d look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great. And again, I’ve spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?

    And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you’re innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.

    Link to transcript is here http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/22/se.06.html

    Since 9 11 it has been hammered home again and again that there is no separation between the two. The Patriot Act is simple case in point here.
    What Newt knows and he’s playing coy about it that we have entered a “New Paradigm”
    What does that mean?

    “It means that all the physical and conceptual walls associated with the modern, sovereign state—the walls that divide domestic from international, the police from the military, intelligence from law enforcement, war from peace, and crime from war—are coming down.”
    -the IACP

    THE NEW PARADIGM—MERGING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGIES Secure Cities 2006 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21970726/IACP-Intelligence-Led-Policing-2006-New-Paradigm

    The principal role of the fusion center is to compile, analyze, and disseminate criminal/terrorist information and intelligence and other information (including, but not limited to, threat, public safety, law enforcement, public health, social services, and public works) to support efforts to anticipate, identify, prevent, and/or monitor criminal/terrorist activity.
    2005 Fusion Center Guidlines

    “At its most fundamental level, crime prevention is terrorism prevention”

    http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=902&issue_id=52006

    There were no leftists in this debate and the walls are being torn down in a highly bipartisan fashion.
    Remember this?

    .. our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.
    John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel

    That would be from the most recent Bush reign.

    What Newt is really saying is that Americans can have their constitutional rights up to a point. That point is where the government says it is and the War on Terror is the excuse. Newt is fine with that. I’m not. This line of thinking will destroy everything that this great nation is supposed to be emblematic of. It is already begun.

  3. Great job, Axxiom!

  4. We are screwed–the political process is theater for the masses. World wide control is coming, its being implemented now and it will not be for the benifit of humanity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s