The Tea Party’s limited-government, constitutional heart is in the right place. But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.
The defense-authorization bill currently under congressional consideration contains some unremarkable, largely redundant provisions about the treatment of enemy combatants. Naturally, the now-familiar alliance of leftists and libertarian extremists — self-proclaimed “constitutionalists” all — attacked with their signature “sky is falling” equanimity. On Wednesday, my column addressed some of the more hysterical arguments posited by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano. The real action, however, was taking place on the Senate floor, where Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (R., Ky.) squared off against John McCain (R., Ariz.), leader of the Republican party’s transnational-progressive wing. Sen. McCain, along with another tranzy, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), sponsored the detention provisions — which are thus collectively known as the McCain-Levin amendment.
Advertisement
Now, the fact that two progressives propose a bill does not necessarily make it wrong, but it can make their defense of it inscrutable. Video footage hyped by Reason magazine shows the folly of giving Senator McCain the laboring oar. He is a populist, out of his depth arguing constitutional issues. Perhaps more important, he is an enthusiastic believer in the alchemic power of “democracy” (or, at least, democratic processes such as elections and constitution-writing) to tame the most virulently anti-Western Islamic backwaters — no doubt owing to the fact that he seems less versed in Islamist ideology than he is in constitutional law.
In my humble opinion (okay, okay, not so humble — but one I’ve spent years developing), historians will look back on the democracy project as the most damaging national-security development in the post-9/11 era. For one thing, it will be seen as the policy that vested such dangerously misplaced Tea Party credibility in libertarian extremists such as Senator Paul and Judge Napolitano, who, under the Orwellian guise of “constitutionalism,” seek to vest our wartime enemies with the rights and privileges of American citizens (to the full peacetime extent of those rights and privileges).
The quest to quell Islamists by democratic processes has only empowered them. It has done nothing to enhance our security against terrorism. It has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars during a time of economic strife. It has actually provoked our enemies, whose ideology — which partisans such as McCain urge us to ignore — calls for waging violent jihad against Western forces that try to implant Western principles in Islamic lands. It has enabled rabidly anti-American Islamists throughout the Middle East to market themselves as “moderate political parties” and bask in the legitimacy the “international community” confers on electoral success — no matter how fraudulently achieved. It has cheapened true Western democracy by accommodating it to authoritarian sharia.
Worst of all, the Islamic-democracy project has sapped the political will of the American people to take actions that are actually necessary to our defense. Democracy fetishists have worn threadbare the public’s patience. Why confront Iranian aggression or Pakistani duplicity, they wonder, if the price-tag is endless years of nation-building masquerading as warfare? Why bother if our troops are hamstrung in combat, put at risk by rules of engagement that prioritize the safety of ungrateful populations? Why mortgage our children’s future if the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a sharia state that despises America?
Well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments and much more gracious to Rand and Ron Paul than I would have been. They have some good ideas, but not everything they propose is a good idea--especially on defense and foreign policy--as you pointed out. Please don't paint the Pauls as the voice of the Tea Parties. They are not. The central theme of the Tea Parties was and is fiscally responsible government and repealing Obamacare. That's it. Not social issues, not foreign policy or isolationism, not anti-gay-marriages, not pro-Bible and anti-evolution, not anti-global-warming, not pro-life, not against income taxes. A lot of people who attended the rallies hold these views, but they aren't what brought everyone to the rallies and united them. Oh, and definitely not racist. There's nothing racist about limiting federal government spending or repealing Obamacare.
Ron Paul, Glenn Beck and others figured prominently at some of the rallies, but they are not the heart and soul of the Tea Party. The only common ground is, and I'll repeat it, fiscal responsibility and repealing Obamacare.
we are in a perpetual state of war ... can we seriously call it wartime any more since it now appears to be the normal state of affairs?
Face it, McCarthy, we are living in a post-Constituional era, and you are merely putting the window dressing of the Republic on display so that a few of us can look on the relics and think that we are, in a time of war, assiduously defending the Republic rather than properly mourn its passing.
Maybe some of us out here in flyover country are concerned about the fact that the Sec DHS seems to feel that a bigger threat to our national security are those returning vets, Tea Party folks, and us God and gun people. There may be nothing nefarious in the McCain-Levin bill. However, based on the realities of the past several years, anything that has come out of DC has never quite been what we have been told.
You are much more learned than I am. You have been a warrior on the front-lines of terrorism. But us common folk just don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when legislation is put forth by folks like McCain and Levin, and then Lindsey Graham comes out and tells us how wonderful it is. We have had the football pulled back on us too many times by these guys.
@texan59
I think you're more 'learned' than you give yourself credit for. Stick with your instincts on this one. I think your absolutely correct in your assessment of smelling a rat. Hold true to your gut-feeling, God, and your Guns....they'll all come in handy and serve you well.
Good point, but the fact is that McCarthy is right about the importance of defining who our enemies are in this war against terrorism. And he is right about the Congress's power to define who our enemies are.
If you don't do this, the situation will become even more chaotic. There is increasing evidence (the Times Square bomber being the prime example) that some of these terrorists are becoming American citizens precisely because they fit in more quietly, enabling them to do their terrible deeds more easily, and because they have protections they would not have otherwise as aliens.
Using American citizenship as a shield? To carry out nefarious deeds? Well, slightly more than 10 years ago, no one thought that anybody would be able, or would have the nerve, to fly planes into some of America's biggest buildings. We must continue this conversation, because the powers can be abused. But we cannot ignore the nature of our enemies.
The title of this article represents everything that is wrong on the mainstream conservative take on national security policy.
I've watched Rand Paul's Senate speech, courtesy of the link this article provides. Senator Paul makes intelligent and cogent arguments, based on the Constitution and on history.
Now, you may disagree with Rand Paul. That's completely fine. But to label him an "extremist" for holding views that are contrary to yours just shuts down debate, and enforces orthodoxy on conservative views of national security, a topic that ought to be debated.
Something ought to be an orthodoxy, such as conservative opposition to Obamacare, support for entitlement reform, etc. But detention policy isn't one of them. Mr. McCarthy, I admire you for your willingness to call Republicans out on their frequent support for Big Government. It's one of the things that makes you one of the most popular writers here. I'd rather you called John Boehner an extremist, than real conservatives like Rand Paul.
Very well put....completely agree. It just goes to show how far off the mark our country is when those who want to get back to the Constitution are labeled 'extreme'. I guess that is an 'extreme' concept to some people....especially those that have something to lose like lobbyists, mainstream media, politicians, etc. Honestly, I don't feel that the average American sees this as 'extreme', and most are starting to see the mainstream media for what it is....just as crooked as the politicians they are writing about.
Senator Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. As such, almost by definition, his views are in fact extremist from a conservative perspective. More importantly, for someone campaigning on returning the government to it's constitutional limits, Senator Paul is simply wrong about the constitutionality of this.
I do not trust the Federal government to exercise the kind of traditional "law-of-war" powers that McCarthy describes. Even if McCarthy is correct about what the Constitution potentially authorizes, the political branches have the right to refuse to exercise these powers. Until and unless they regain the trust of the American people, they should refuse.
"Let us gauge our decline in our rhetoric. James Madison said in 1795: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Lindsey Graham said this week, boastfully: “When they say, ‘I want to talk to a lawyer,’ we tell them, ‘Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!"
The author doesn't mention we conducting this war in a manner that virtually guarantees continual warfare. Moreover, his arguments regarding Lincoln do not hold water. Lincoln's actions were motivated by preserving the union, not empire maintenance.
Rand Paul extremist? I generally agree with you on Islamofacists and national security. But why do you have to demagogue someone you disagree with? There's no need for that when arguing policy. This is something the Dems and Barry do.
The problem is this administration has destroyed the faith of the American people. Until order is restored in Washington, i would rather err on the side of libertty. Normally,Mr. McCarthy the clean up hitter on these matters, instead gives the kneejerk response to paint Napalatono and Paul as liberterian extremists, has me questioning who have you been speninding your nights with Mr. McCarty? Are you becoming a RINO? The danger presented by the white house and senate are far more dangerous than the islamofascists right now
Andrew, you're wrong in practically everything you said. Rand Paul wasn't arguing that foreign terrorists should have the same rights as American citizens. He was arguing that this particular Defense Authorization Bill did indeed apply to U.S citizens. This bill gives the federal government the power to detain U.S citizens indefinitely at Gitmo or somewhere else. Perhaps you should actually go back and watch Rand Paul's Senate speech. He was talking about the fact that this bill applies to U.S citizens, not simply foreigners.
Andrew, this particular bill did indeed apply to U.S citizens. That's why Rand Paul was opposed to it. It gave the government the right to indefinitely detain U.S citizens at Gitmo or anywhere else. That's why Rand Paul was opposed to it; because it tramples on the Bill of Rights. Maybe you should actually go back and watch Rand Paul's speech. It had nothing to do with giving "foreigners" the same rights as U.S citizens.
"Paul is attacking the McCain-Levin amendment as if it broke new ground. But the amendment only reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided:............."
This is the classic central planner, in this case warmongering hack, who comes across as the negotiator who claims that this one issue is not a big deal at all. It is just something we do anyway. We are just going to reduce it to writing, don't worry it's nothing, really. I love this gambit in negotiations, because the first response to a hack neocon like McCarthy is, well, if it "only reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided" and it really is no big deal, then it should be no big deal to tell McCarthy and his warmongering brethren WE DON'T NEED A NEW LAW. C'mon McCarthy if it truly is no big deal, then why are you flailing at Rand Paul for opposing your new law, that remember, is no big deal and is not a stretch from what is allowed now. Hack.
Andrew, this particular bill did indeed apply to U.S citizens. That's why Rand Paul was so strongly opposed to it. He supports the Bill of Rights. This bill gives the federal government the power to detain an American citizen indefinitely at Gitmo or anywhere else. Maybe you should actually go back and watch Rand Paul's speech. It had nothing to do with giving "foreigners" the same rights as U.S citizens.
