Yes, it is true. Although some have said that acts of state by many countries over the years are acts of terror, there is little doubt but that however you define "act of terror" terror will never go away. Ever. At least according to the definitions offered to date by Congress and President Obama. And today in his major "terror" speech the president who believes in controlling the media and asserting his decisions over life and death itself will lay out his case for keeping you "free" with the constitutional limitations allegedly acceptable for "war-time" presidents. For to listen to Obama, we will have "war" for the rest of time. Unending "war." Without end.
For no matter what "terror" is, we know "terror" when it is in our hearts. And it is there whenever the public is threatened. To President Obama and Congress that definition of "terror" means that trillions must be spent forever. It means that our presidents must have complete control over anyone's life at any time for any reason, as long as they tag the act "terror." It means that the president must have "war" powers forever.
Confronted with this situation of unending war, normally bellicose Republicans find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. Do they stick with their inclination to be tough on "terror" or do they go after terror as usual? Do they want unending "war," and does that comport with their own views of freedom and even "war" itself?
If you look back, you will find a few Republicans like Ron Paul who are antiwar. And while antiwar is not anti-war-on-terror, it is certainly a step in what is the right direction for those unwilling to cede control over our lives in a 1984-type Orwellian world because a few crazy people threaten the public. Even if they can do so with nuclear weapons.
In the end, we will never get rid of crazies. But we can end freedom as we have in greater amounts every day by giving the president "war" powers when there is no real, Constitutional "war." Only a power grab that could be without end if Obama has his way.
So it is that Obama will lay out to what The Washington Post today called an "apathetic public" his case for unending "war."
And for those who, like myself, used to be as far from a strict constructionist as possible, a Constitution that is not malleable or changed merely by "modern" thinking and situations becomes far more reasonable and rational.
There is no basis for claiming that "terror" could be treated as "war" when the Constitution was written. Or the Bill of Rights. And it is here that the old guard of Republicans are center stage in what may prove to be the biggest issue of this century. Where do you draw the line on "war?" Only the Supreme Court knows. And no case thus far is before it to provide us with the answer.
So it is that Articles of Impeachment become the only sensible way to make sense out of this question for the foreseeable future. I suggest we add an article contending that he has exceeded his powers by killing citizens abroad. Whether Congress has authorized war without end is another key question. If not, claim Obama has exceeded the powers granted to him by Congress.