January 30, 2015

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

TAMPA, April 20, 2013 – 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev is in custody. Assuming that Tsarnaev is indeed guilty of these crimes, a very real threat to public safety has been taken off the streets. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the Tsarnaev brothers have taken the last vestiges of a free society in America down with them.

The Bill of Rights was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act. The 5th and 6th Amendments were similarly abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006 and the 2012 NDAA resolution, which contained a clause allowing the president to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without due process of law.

Americans had already grown accustomed to having their persons and papers searched at the airport without probable cause and without a warrant supported by oath or affirmation. After a brief, politically-motivated backlash against the Bush Administration, Americans similarly resigned themselves to the government tapping their phones, reading their e-mails and generally spying on them wherever they went. Things were already very, very bad.

They just got a lot worse.

Not only did the militarized domestic law enforcement complex put the City of Boston under martial law, but nobody seems to have found it out of the ordinary, much less outrageous. Yes, a few journalists like libertarian Anthony Gregory raised a finger. But, for the most part, nobody seemed to mind that the entire city was under military siege, complete with paramilitary units in full battle gear, battlefield ordinance and tanks. Tanks!

Read the rest of the article at Communities@ Washington Times…


  1. Jim Getten says:

    “When you have a nation of sheep, you will have a government of wolves.” Edward R Morrow

  2. Phil Peer says:

    Well Tom, I wanted to post a friendlier response (without bashing deontology, heh heh heh).

    Your conclusions in this article are pretty agreeable.
    I’m not a proponent of the claim that The Constitution is inherently justified. In theory, any amendment that can be improved upon ought to be. It’s also possible for opposing ideologies to come up with different interpretations of words (especially to maximize their wealth).

    Enforcing an interpretation is kinda like getting your kid’s friends to cooperate in a game of Jinx. The kids may agree to keep their mouthes shut, but who’s going to stop them from abandoning the game?

    I would guess that neither the Rep. nor Dem. parties have strong incentives to preserve the interpretation of the amendments that you support.

    The (increasing number) of Americans who don’t support the Rep./Dem. dichotomy need a more vicious means of civil disobedience (my definition of “vicious” is pretty vague). Are there any forms of boycotting you would advocate? (I suppose income taxes are one of them).