The 9/11 attacks provided the U.S. government with one of the greatest opportunities in U.S. history to destroy the freedom of the American people. Declaring a “war on terrorism,” federal officials seized upon the crisis to exercise omnipotent powers, purportedly to keep the nation “safe” from the terrorists who were supposedly hell-bent on coming to get us. In the process, the war-on-terrorism racket became as effective in destroying liberty as the war-on-communism racket throughout the Cold War.
With the war on terrorism, U.S. officials don’t have to bother complying with constitutional restraints and the restrictions in the Bill of Rights. That’s because the U.S. is considered to be at “war.” Therefore, the executive branch is permitted to do pretty much anything it wants without concerning itself with interference by the other two branches — Congress and the federal judiciary. That’s a perfect recipe for the destruction of liberty.
We are now witnessing this phenomenon in cases involving criminal actions by people who are protesting the actions of President Trump’s buddy Elon Musk, who Trump appointed to head the so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE). The acts that the defendants have purportedly committed are ordinary state-level crimes — trespass, vandalism, destruction of property, and arson that destroyed Teslas. Presumably, the suspects are retaliating against Musk for his DOGE activities. Ordinarily, it would be state officials who would be prosecuting them, given that vandalism, trespass, destruction of property, and arson are state-level crimes, not federal crimes.
Elon Musk.
Not here though. The feds are treating these state-level offenses differently. They have decreed that the defendants are actually guilty of the federal crime of “terrorism.” Apparently the notion is that instead of simply using these acts of violence to retaliate against Musk, they are instead using violence to coerce the federal government into changing its policies.
That notion gets them into federal court given that terrorism is a federal offense … except for one thing. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, terrorism has also been considered at act of war. The final determination — criminal offense or act of war — is up to U.S. officials. The difference is day and night.
Under post-9/11 doctrine, U.S. officials have an option of treating the anti-Musk protestors as criminal defendants or as “unlawful combatants” in the perpetual, ongoing, never-ending “war on terrorism.” The reason they would be “unlawful” is that they were waging war without wearing uniforms when they destroyed those Teslas.
In fact, President Trump has even intimated that after conviction and sentencing, the defendants could be sent to El Salvador for incarceration, where they would be beyond the reach of U.S. courts and subject to being brutally tortured by a foreign regime. In other words, these Americans citizens would be treated in the same way that Trump and his minions are treating illegal immigrants from Venezuela.
Some legal scholars have said that Trump couldn’t get away with that because it would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Those legal scholars just don’t get it. If the Tesla attackers are converted from criminal defendants to unlawful combatants in the war on terrorism, the Constitution goes out the window. After all, this is war — the “war on terrorism”!
After the 9/11 attacks, The Future of Freedom Foundation took a firm stance against the entire war-on-terrorism racket. That included our fierce opposition to the U.S. government’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But it also our fierce opposition to the federal seizure of “emergency” totalitarian-like powers to deal with the “terrorist crisis,” including such things as torture, secret illegal surveillance, and state-sponsored assassinations. For our fierce opposition to such dark-side actions, we came under severe attack by right-wingers, who accused us of hating America and loving the terrorists.
Consider, for example, the case of a man named Jose Padilla. In the post-9/11 aftermath, the feds charged him with terrorism in U.S. District Court, given that terrorism is a federal criminal offense. One day, however, the feds removed him from federal-court jurisdiction and delivered him into the clutches of the military, which proceeded to incarcerate him in a military brig and subject him to brutal torture. Keep in mind something important: Padilla was an American citizen.
While conservatives cheered what was happening to Padilla, we strongly opposed it. In our system of justice, we said, Padilla was no business of the military. Padilla belonged back in federal court since terrorism is a federal criminal offense. Right-wingers were sending us emails accusing us of siding with the terrorists. They just didn’t get it — that if the feds could get away with doing this to Padilla, it would establish a precedent that would enable them to do it to any American.
Deferring to the Pentagon, the federal courts upheld military control over Padilla. That principle now applies to all Americans, not just to Padilla. If the executive branch wants to treat terrorist suspects as unlawful enemy combatants, the federal courts will not interfere. After all, this is “war” — the “war on terrorism”!
It’s the same with state-sponsored assassinations. When the executive branch decided to assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, the federal courts made it clear that they would not interfere. Again, the power of the post 9/11 “war on terrorism” reared its ugly head. Right-wingers cheered. That power of assassination can now be employed against any American labeled a “terrorist.”
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no way that people who live under this type of totalitarian-like system can possibly be considered free.
There is one ironic and somewhat humorous part of all this war-on-terrorism nonsense. After the January 6 protests on the Capitol went awry, some of the defendants were labeled and treated as “terrorists.” Of course, right-wingers went ballistic, pointing out that the protestors were simply guilty of trespass and, in some cases simple assault or destruction of property. Thus, it is somewhat ironic and humorous that we now have right-wingers labeling and treating the anti-Musk protestors who simply trespassed and destroyed Teslas as “terrorists.”
It’s time for Americans to do some serious soul-searching about what U.S. officials did after the 9/11 attacks to destroy the freedom of the American people. It’s time to toss the entire war-on-terrorism racket into the dustbin of history. It’s time for Americans to regain their freedom from both left-wingers and right-wingers.
