Evincing a Design of Absolute Despotism

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

In our continuing series, “The Courts Are There to Invent, Protect, and Expand Leviathan’s ‘Rights,’ Not Yours,” we find that a “federal appeals court” has upheld the Feds’ power to “indefinitely detain” us.

Last month, a judge by name of Katherine Forrest, who clearly didn’t read the memo on the judiciary’s role, actually ruled that Obummer couldn’t denounce somebody as a terrorist, throw him in the pokey, and call it a day, as the NDAA permits. She delivered a blistering opinion, in fact, in which she discussed such old-fashioned, irrelevant concepts as the Constitution, habeas corpus, legislation left deliberately vague to confuse and imprison serfs, freedom (ha!) of speech and assembly, etc.

Obummer, the guy who so disagrees with the NDAA that he claimed to have “serious reservations” when signing it and promised never to use its power, vowed to appeal crazy Kate’s decision within mere hours. I know, I know: unseemly eagerness rather than the reluctance earlier professed. Well, were I a cynic, I’d say Obummer lies as often as he breathes. At any rate, another gowned clown has now come to the Feds’ defense and declared Kate wrong: Obummer may indeed jail anyone anywhere in the world for any or no reason whatever. (Hey, he already murders whomever he chooses: What’s a little kidnapping and imprisonment after that?) And now the other two clowns from that circus—sorry, bench—have solemnly agreed with Clown #1 that yes, it’s perfectly fine for Our Rulers to incarcerate anyone, anywhere without trial or evidence, a millennium of Anglo-American jurisprudential tradition to the contrary be damned.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…”

10:02 am on October 3, 2012