Then They Came for Me

[Theophylact]

First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937).


(Here's the source.)

[vass0922]

quite true
I'm as guilty as the next person for it too.

When will it be our turn?

[daveleau]

Wow, so shocking for such liberal drivel to come from an ACLU'er.

First, there is NO ONE being detained for being Muslim. That is a totally imbecilic statement and it shows this man's ignorance on the subject.

The people being detained happen to be Muslims but the reason they are being detained is because they attacked our military and are the enemy in this war. This is not a war like any other. There are no uniforms and there is no solidly defined rank structure. The invaders are not bands of soldiers but silent cells waiting to sabotage when the word is given from within the borders of EVERY nation.

As I have stated before, it is legal to capture and hold enemy fighters who pose a threat until hostilities have ended. Hostilities have not ended. This right is stipulated in the Geneva Convention. The Constitution has the Writ of Habeas Corpus which does not allow us to hold people without reason UNLESS they are invaders. The silent cells are members of an invading party trying to subvert our country. If you doubt that, then you must have been under a rock on Sept 11 because they struck then and have done so on other occasions around the globe.

I don't believe we should give up any liberties for safety. But, I do believe we should use the provisions already laid out for us (Geneva Convention and Constitution). Liberals tend to forget that WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR! They tend to lose sight of the fact that WE COULD LOSE OUR LIVES IF WE DO NOT BEAT BACK THE ENEMY! Vietnam was lost because it was run by politicians and because we fought a limited war. Do you want the same to happen? Then get off the backs of the people who are protecting you and let them do their job the right way. Imprison those who are tied to terror and don't give them a hand up in their fight against us, or else our country might some day be a barren desert devoid of freedom like their areas are.


So, boiled down in regards to the above posted drivel, don't invade the US, don't support terrorism and don't try to kill others AND YOU WON'T BE DETAINED! Freedom can be taken away if you break the law, but it is not molested otherwise (not in the US).

What's next guys, do you think we should let all the rapist and murderers and drug dealers out of jail because we are denying them their rights to freedom? Because in essence that is what is being alluded to above... Who IS next?

There ARE times that we need to speak up and that is when they try to take away the rights of life to children and try to take away our rights to self-defense against criminals. THAT is what we should speak out against. Not the freeing of terrorists. Why do so many bleeding hearts back those who have wronged us and terrorized us, but do not back innocent unborn children who are murdered every day in this nation?

Nice post Dave

Let's not forget that some of the Sept 11th hijackers would have been detained instead of flying airplanes into buildings if we had pursued "suspected terrorists" as aggressively as we should have.

I'm all for protecting our Constitutional rights, but not to the point of assisting those who wish to bring death and destruction to our citizens.

[J-Excel]

It's a parable showing the threat of rights infringement as a result of the new homeland security act.. I think anyway. No need to get nasty. The only thing I dislike more than the ultra-left is the ultra-right.

The parable is fine, I agree with the premise, but using it as an argument as to why law enforcement should not be able to detain these would-be mass murderers is quite another matter....

The Homeland Security Act is in response to the atrocities that have struck our soil... it's not like we don't have good reason to be a little more vigilant at keeping that kind of tragedy from happening again.

[J-Excel]

I read it different I guess. I read it as a general rights failure and the Muslim part was just a small thing to get it started. I didn't think the emphasis was on the detaining of innocent Muslims. Not that I think any of them are necessariy innocent.

[Theophylact]

(The Niemoller original begins, "First they came for the Jews...".)

[daveleau]

On a separate note, I'm not really ultra-right. I will admit that I am more conservative than many, but not so far to the right that I can't see when the left is ...well...right. I don't like parts of the HSA and I am anti-death penalty and am a free-thinker. I don't pony up to the right side of the bar ALL the time.

The statement makes a lot of sense when it is put into perspective for people in Germany and the Jews. The Jews were jailed just because they were Jews and not for any terroristic activity like the people (mostly Muslims) here in the US.

If the Muslim slant is taken out and the focus not meant for those being detained int he US, then I agree. The destruction of rights is a slippery slope. Once things get started, it is all downhill. That is why gun rights activists and anti-gun activists work so hard on their cases. Both sides know that one small decision leads to and sets precedent for the next decision. And the same was seen in the abortion situation. Once abortion was allowed for 1st trimester babies (I don't distinguish between their different stages, even though as a biologist, I know full well that it is technically a fetus in scientific terms), then the road was paved to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. And now we have partial birth abortions where a full term baby is murdered as it is birthed. It is a slippery slope and one seemingly innocent decision that goes the wrong way can spell doom for the rights of the whole later on down the line.

The devil is in the details and the small decisions are key to winning the battle of retaining the freedom our forefathers set up for us.

[vass0922]

that's why I agreed with it, it really has nothing to do with the muslims per say, its just an example in the overall argument. It's basically saying we allow all of these things to go ahead because they don't effect us... but what happens when they DO effect us? THEN we get upset because nobody else is around to support us