Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McCain says American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo
U.S. citizens beware: A bill being debated on the Senate floor this week is likely to pass, and if it becomes law, you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay.
The bill is the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867. Section 1031 of the bill gives the President and the Armed Forces enormous power to detain people they believe were involved in the attacks of Sept. 11 or supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Guantanamo BayThat section empowers the President to detain such persons indefinitely without trial or to try them before a military court or to transfer them “to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
Sen. Mark Udall introduced an amendment to modify this section, and his amendment was voted down on Tuesday.
Sen. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment to delete this section entirely, and on Tuesday, he had the following exchange with Sen. John McCain, who is co-sponsoring the bill.
Sen. Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”
Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”
There has been some confusion on the Internet as to whether the National Defense Authorization Act really applies to U.S. citizens. But Sen. McCain’s answer should clarify that once and for all.
The confusion stems from Section 1032, which deals with the military detention of the people the Armed Forces captures “in the course of hostilities.” Part of Section 1032 states: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, explains the problem.
“The exclusion on Section 1032 only applies to 1032. It doesn’t apply to 1031,” he says. “And that only makes it worse, because any judge is going to say, ‘Of course, members of Congress meant for American citizens to be detained because if they didn’t, they would have put in the exception they put in one section later.’ ”
Anders also noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham, a backer of the bill, has said multiple times on the Senate floor, including on Tuesday, that American citizens should be put into military detention without a lawyer.
Here’s what Sen. Graham said in the Senate on Nov. 17:
“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Anders is troubled by an additional aspect of Section 1031—the part that mentions transferring someone “to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
The implication, says Anders, is that “if you’re an American citizen and were born somewhere else, you can be sent to the country where you were born, which you fled, which is out to persecute you.”
I’d like to add that the way the clause is constructed—note the use of the conjunction “or”--it could mean that even a person born in the United States could be sent overseas. And what, may I ask, is a “foreign entity”? Would that include Erik Prince’s new mercenary company in Abu Dhabi?
Rep. Ron Paul calls this bill “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.” He says it’s “destructive of our Constitution.”
His son Sen. Rand Paul says, “There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state - our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.”
In Congress, at least, they are winning.
The House passed a similar bill in the spring. And the Senate is likely to pass this one.
Then it’ll be up to President Obama, who has threatened to veto it--and not solely for high-minded reasons, as my colleague Elizabeth DiNovella outlined yesterday.
The ACLU is counting on Obama.
“The veto threat has to be taken seriously,” says Anders. “Our expectation is the president will follow through with this.”
115 Comments so far
Show AllTo the stockades with McCain.
Really. One of several psychos in powerful leadership positions. Scary. Very, very scary.
don't blame mccain
he has been distracted trying to figure out the difference between al queda and the barracuda
so far he has figured out that one has a pointy nose
wait a minute - that could be his wife - what's her name....
Rothschild deceptively left out that Carl Levin, senator from Michigan, was the co-sponsor with McCain of this monstrous bill. The Democrats and Republicans are in this together--demonstrating what a bankrupt political system we have. Udall tried to soften the bill a bit, but his amendment lost--thanks in part to Levin's opposition. This Democratic zionist gave cover to the Republicans who want the military to rule this country. It's just a matter of time before the military is used against American protesters, like the Occupy folks. Again, this is a Republican and Democrat travesty.
McCain says American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo.
Okay, then let's send McCain to Guantanamo!
Why go to the expense of transporting anyone to Gitmo, when the Halliburton/KBR camps are already built on US soil and waiting to go...
Matthew! Why are you not including the Democrat....Carl Zionist Levin in your article???
16 misguided fools from the democratic party are part of this horror. That is far better than all but 2 republicans. There is a difference. Thank goodness for decent humans like my 2 Senators from Minnesota. (The last public protest that I attended was with a small group that included Matthew. It's been too long.)
"16 misguided fools..."
.
You mean that 1/3 of the Senate Blue Team explicitly believe that the constitution is a quaint and worthless peice of toilet paper. 1/3 of the so called "Democratic" party think its alright with them if the President acts as a authoritarian dictator.
.
This bill doesn't pass without the "Democrats" being on board.
.
And let's not forget about the Top "Democrat" President Borat's atrocious anti- civil liberties record. He's already proven that he can and will hold american citizens without charging them ... and even proclaim that they are guilty before a trial ever takes place! And oh yeah... Borat will gladly assassinate american citizens too, without trial. Even if they're children! From his vote on retro active telecom immunity for spying to whole hearted sponsorship of the reauthorization of the unPatriot act .... we know where Oblahblah stands. And the ACLU is counting on O to do what exactly? Veto a law authorizing him to ignore the constitution so he can then go on ignoring the constitution anyway.
.
Borat doesn't need a law authorizing him to do what he is already doing. He might as well veto it and give the real misguided fools who still believe that the "Democratic" party is the lesser of 2 evils a reason to pretend that Borat and Team Blue are really making a difference.
.
Nice Play Borat ... "And that's the way I see it...."
Good point. They always get just enough Dems to get the number of votes needed. In this case, to scare off (or give cover for) a non-veto. I'm sure the Dems have a pecking order for who can most/least afford to support a particular measure.
This is the next logical step going forward. I can see women, blacks and other minorities being sent there.
I can see people who post anti-administration comments on Common Dreams being sent there. This is a total assault on the rights of free speech in this country. Its purpose, supported by both political parties, is to silence any opposition to government policies--or risk being incarcerated for life. The real question is, "Who are the puppeteers behind the Levin and McCain puppets who are pushing us deeper and deeper into a police state, totalitarian society that is not that different from the North Korean government they profess to hate?"
Puppeteers behind the puppets? The surname of the author of this article should give you a clue as to the identity of the string-pullers.
Yup! But there are others too.
Your point is taken. But, let's not devolve into name-blaming.
Hear, hear.
I am compelled to object to your expression of blatant anti-Semitic bigotry.
The deluded notion of a group of shadowy alien figures behind the scenes pulling the strings - known by their surnames, hint hint - is a centuries-old anti-Semitic theme, and was the basis for the Nazi "philosophy."
You are really on to the Nazi's. Too bad that was over half a century ago but you haven't got a clue about the a newer struggle going on now. This is trashing the Constitution and with the help of Dems and Levin is a sponsor. This is new and being done in secret with the Pres promising a veto most likely to give himself cover when he declares he had to give in to the will of Congress. I don't like Ron or Rand's libertarianism but at least they are speaking for the Constitution while you are telling us it is down the drain already and so what.
I did not say what you claim I said.
I was not talking about the Nazis, other than as a subordinate topic to my main point, the post I objected to is expressing bigoted themes that are centuries-old, and that the expression and promotion of those ideas will lead to, has led to, the ultimate suppression of human rights, not to any defense of human rights.
Thank you, for doing so, Two A. I apologize for the Nazi inference I made in another thread. Too many on these discussion boards conflate what a portion of Israel's elite does with the entirety of U.S. foreign (and lately domestic) policies. That sounds like yet another set-up to make a particular group responsible for what a lot of other interests are behind. The culpability needs to be judiciously spread around. To narrow the target speaks of a narrow-minded, highly prejudicial agenda.
Its just another way of deflecting blame. The US Military and the Coporations and its "wealthy elite" cannot be evil enough to invade Libya, bomb Iraq, bail out the banks with trillions of dollars so it must be those Jews.
Then it becomes business as usual with those really pulling the strings because anyone who tries to speak the truth of what they are up to will be lumped into the "Blame the Jews" crowd.
I'm not sure who this is directed at, but my point in my previous post was that we have most likely had a shadow government functioning behind the scenes since the assassinations of the 1960s, and it is getting stronger with every new piece of legislation that curtails and suppresses our constitutional rights. I doubt that this shadow government is organized around ethnicity, but is rather comprised of many different special interests who are transforming this country piece by piece into a fascist police state. (I have Jewish relatives, incidentally, some of whom perished in Nazi Germany.) Anyone at all familiar with the assassination of John F. Kennedy has to know that there were some fundamental changes in the way our president and other political leaders were reduced in stature and subordinated to the role of figureheads, while other far more powerful people commenced pulling the strings of power behind the scenes. Watch Oliver Stone's JFK. It is far closer to the truth about the power-shift that occurred in Dallas on that tragic day in November of 1963 than anything we have heard from our government. This consolidation of power continues behind the scenes to this very day, and it should not be confused with the old Nazi ploys mentioned elsewhere in this dialogue.
My post is in response to rama, and has nothing to do with JFK.
Two Americas: Were they living, my Jewish father and grandmother would have a good laugh at your giant leap to "blatant anti-semitism" in my remark. I have relatives on Grandma's side that were murdered by the Nazis. And, I did not say that the Rothschilds were the only string pullers, but that the name would provide a clue. The global Rothschild banking cartel is a huge (if not premier) part of a SECULAR movement that aims toward world domination.
Your response changes nothing and does not refute what I said.
Your use of the word "secular" here betrays you. Anti-Semitism is not about religion.
here is some historical background for you:
...
For centuries, anti-Semitic propaganda has demonized the Jew as a conspiratorial, manipulative outsider, often with powers and designs of world domination. From the Middle Ages through the Holocaust, fabricated accusations against Jews as poisoners and corrupters have led to horrendous suffering for the Jewish people.
In more recent years, the anti-Semitic notion that "the Jews" dominate and command the U.S. Federal Reserve System and in effect control the world’s money has surfaced across the extremist spectrum. Contemporary economic anxieties and distrust of government have given new life to this timeworn myth.
The "Rothschild" Connection -
"Most of the owners of the largest banks in America," wrote the late Sheldon Emry, an early leader of the racist and anti-Semitic "Identity" church movement, "are of Eastern European ancestry and connected with the Rothschild banks."
In the literature of bigots, the name Rothschild is a trigger for the most explosive of anti-Semitic tremors, and it usually sets off a litany of other Jewish names. In his recent book Called to Serve, Col. James "Bo" Gritz, the 1992 Presidential candidate of the extremist Populist Party, charged that "eight Jewish families control the FED" (Federal Reserve System).
In 1983, the charge that Rothschild banks and other international banking concerns, mostly with Jewish names, controlled the Federal Reserve was published (probably from earlier sources) in the newsletter of a local Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) - not an extremist group. The article stated that the Federal Reserve System "is not a Federal entity but a private corporation owned in part by the following: Rothschild banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers bank of Paris, Israel Moses Seif banks of Italy, Warburg bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. bank of New York, Chase Manhattan bank of New York, Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York, Goldman Sachs bank of New York."
In fact the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - the largest and most significant of the Fed's 12 banks - lists the banks in the Second Federal Reserve District that are members and stockholders in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. With the exception of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the institutions cited by the NARFE newsletter as allegedly owning and controlling the Federal Reserve system ("Rothschild ...Lazard Brothers ...Israel Moses Seif ...Warburg ...Lehman Brothers ...Kuhn, Loeb ...Goldman, Sachs") were not members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/print.asp
You are quite deliberately twisting my words to cover up your own leap to conclusions and/or to promote your own agenda. It is, indeed, a misnomer, but I think you know very well that in popular parlance, calling someone out as anti-Semitic refers to that person as having a prejudice against Jews, Jewish religion and/or culture. It’s a very dirty little trick intended to trash dialogue and besmirch credibility. Instead of asking me for further clarification, you just pounced.
"Your use of the word "secular" here betrays you." Huh? Betrays what? Secular means 1) Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a specific religious body. It is an adjective that I used as a reference to a movement bent on world domination. More specifically, that movement is Zionism. In that respect, the use of secular is appropriate. Not all Zionists are Jewish. Joe Biden, for one example, calls himself a Zionist. “Zionism vs Judaism” link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsCBn6Qhow4
I am not twisting your words. I am not calling you out. I am not calling you anything.
I merely pointed out that you are repeating an anti-Semitic theme that has been used by bigots for a long time. That is not "a dirty little trick."
You have every opportunity for "further clarification,: and instead dig yourself in deeper and deeper. Now you want to talk about Zionism.
Anti-Semitism is not about religion. Your use of the word "secular" illustrates that you do think this is about religion. It is no more about religion than criticism of the British Empire is about Christianity.
I am "promoting an agenda" of speaking out against racism, sexism and bigotry. The "Jewish banking conspiracy" bigotry is the oldest and most vicious of any. White supremacists and bigoted hate groups have long used the word "Rothschilds" as a stand in for "Jews," and have used the tactic of pointing to people's surnames as damning "evidence" against that person and an entire group of people.
Maybe you did this inadvertently. All you need to do is acknowledge the legitimacy of my objection. But you don't. You fight and argue about it.
Hi Old Guy--I recently revisited my JFK/CIA archive to see how it fit with other evidence I'd uncovered regarding the Who behind it all and when the silent takeover of the federal government began. Henry Wallace didn't name them but did describe the segment of society that did the deed in his essay "The Danger of American Fascism," which was published in 1944, http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm He was also prescient enough to predict the so-called Truman Doctrine would initiate "a century of fear." Currently, I'm looking into the election of 1940, in which FDR promised the USA wouldn't become involved in any "foreign wars," when he was already actively planning to enter the war against Japan and Germany. My working hypothesis is that post-WW2 planning for global US Imperial hegemony was initiated during or just after the election because elements of that plan were already being employed in 1943 occupied Italy and thus had to be in place by late 1942 at the earliest. The two Big Business sectors hurt most by the sudden outbreak of democracy during the 1930s--Wall Street and its allied Merchants of Death--were granted a second life with WW2 and--as seen from today--clearly took advantage to ensure their close demise would never occur again.
Thanks much for the above info, and good luck with your project. I did not know the "silent takeover" went that far back--but I'm not surprised. I lost my innocence when I saw Oswald gunned down on national television. I had just turned to my mother to say, "Mom, they're not even trying to protect him," when I heard the gunshot. I looked back at the television set, and Oswald was lying on the floor. I've been a cynic ever since.
It does seem to me right now that a lot of things are going on behind the scenes to consolidate the power grab that has been going on since, apparently, World War II.
Incidentally, if you haven't done so already, read James Douglass' book, JFK and the Unspeakable. I've read most of the major books on the assassination, and I think he really puts it all together in a way that makes perfect sense. Of course, he acknowledges many very courageous researchers and film makers who literally put their reputations and even their lives on the line to get to the truth behind the assassination.
I still think someday, long after we are all gone and assuming this nation steps back from its journey to fascism, that Oliver Stone's film JFK will be acknowledged as the great American epic of the 20th century. (Of course, if things keep going the way they are, our national leaders will probably round up all copies of the film and burn them.) I watch it at least once a year to determine if there is anything about the assassination I have overlooked, and also to marvel at the brilliance of the film. Oliver Stone paid dearly for the gift of insight and truth he bequeathed to the American people. Using the best research that was available at the time, he did a brilliant job of putting it all together for the rest of us.
I responded to your earlier post not having read this one, where you in fact mention the JFK book. I need to watch the Oliver Stone film again. I recently watched "The Doors" and Stone did an incredible job of bringing that era to life. The film is really a work of art in the broadest sense.
many posts regarding JFK...not one mentions that George Bush, Sr. was in Dallas that day, working for the CIA...
he was THERE...
as was nixon.
OLD GUY: I am with you 100% on your comment. Don't forget how Eisenhower warned about the growing influence of the MIC, and the allegations made in the well-researched book, "JFK & The Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Mattered." The growth of the National Security State along with the covert "government" represented by a clandestine group of interests that likely funded the "007" series to "sex up" the premise of a license to kill is not to be tossed off. The way the Supreme Court over-reached in the 2000 election, added to the way no authoritries remedied the voter frauds (Ohio) of 2004, added to the naked war of aggression that the Iraqi mission represented... all bearing no sign of legal redress, allows fraud to follow fraud. All this is quite troubling for any romantic notion about representative government or the faintest premise of a remaining democracy. The illusion of public input is in place through fake elections, elaborate polls, and non-stop media talking heads there to legitimize the fraud(s).
It's all pretty insane... WE are inside the Matrix now.
Your comment sounds like blatant anti-semitism to me. Most Jews -- and Matthew Rothschild in particular -- are as liberal as any poster here. Rothschild is editor of The Progressive, the magazine founded a century ago by Wisconsin's "Fighting Bob" LaFollette, who got his nickname by fighting in Washington for progressive, citizen- and Constitution-honoring practices. He was to Wisconsin what Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone were to Minnesota, where I live. The "puppets behind the puppets" are much more likely to be corporate types like the Koch Brothers and the National Chamber of Commerce.
I assume, since I'm under attack by Two Americas as being anti-Semitic, that you are referring to me. I used the coincidence of the Rothschild surname to this article to point toward a global banking cartel of the same name. Nothing more. No mention was made as to Matthew Rothschild, himself, or to his politics. You are far too defensive and far too eager to fling around the term, "anti-Semitic" at a poster. The Koch brothers are domestically powerful, but you do not go far enough in connecting the dots in a global sense.
You are not under attack. I merely pointed out that you are repeating an age-old anti-Semitic theme. Maybe it was inadvertent, maybe it was through ignorance. I don't know.
Now you turn around and claim that you are somehow a victim here.
Mine was a very brief comment in reply to Old Guy that was intended to point to the Zionist Rothschild Banking Cartel, a principal puppeteer in international finance and global politics. He got it. You didn't. You immediately assumed that I was an anti-Semite and a bigot. I did not, inadvertently, or through ignorance say anything to warrant that smear. You admit that you "don't know." May I suggest, that when you don't know something, that you ask questions for clarification. Your leap caused a number of other posters to hop aboard your wrongful train of thought. The tactic of calling someone anti-Semitic is also an age-old attack that has ruined countless lives and livelihoods. The Zionist ADL, from whom you apparently take your history lessons, has done a great job of doing just that. If you still don't understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism, here's a good article by a Jewish author that can help you: "ADL,Zionist Policies Causing Rise in Anti-Jewish Sentiment" http://www.rense.com/general67/adlpol.htm
"The Zionist Rothschild Banking Cartel, a principal puppeteer in international finance and global politics" repeats a long standing bigoted idea.
This has nothing to do with banking, with the ongoing Wall Street thievery, with Israel or with Zionism, with the MIC or the PTB. This about bigotry.
WASP males have most of the power and wealth in this country - still.
OLD GUY: You beat me to the punch.
Donna: Solid post.
"It couldn't happen here..." Till it did.
Hiro8 -- Excellent question. Levin is a key part of the formulation, too.
Depending on Obama to do the right thing and veto this???
That's an April Fool's joke, yes?
Obama has already claimed the right to murder U.S. citizens without trial or due process-- why would he balk at shipping them to Guantanamo? The logic of this is inexorable: if you can kill anybody you deem a threat to the "homeland" without trial ... and the battlefield is now everywhere on the planet including within the borders of the U.S. ....
Therefore by executive order you can kill anyone, anywhere... they've been murdering state 'enemies' throughout Amerikan history {the assassination of Fred Hampton is a good example}
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/the_assassination_of_fred_hampton_how
... however they did it on the sly, it wasn't legal. Now they are codifying laws that make their assassinations and incarcerations without trial legal. Presumably, they will be more selective than Stalin or Hitler but the principle is the same. They have the right to take people out who threaten the 'homeland' in any nebulous way they see fit.
In September it was Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, in the future maybe it will be Julian Assange or David Ray Griffin. Can David Ray Griffin prove he is not working for Al-Qaeda to destroy Amerika? I think not. Case closed.
Of course, they will probably want to start the ball rolling with less prominent or sympathetic 'enemies' -- and al-Awlaki was a good choice.
Wow. BO ran on a promise of shutting down Guantanamo, and under his administration not only has he not done that, but its usage has now been expanded and legitimised.
But, haven't you heard? During THIS campaign season, he is promising to close it. He promises even if Congress won't let him.
Too many Americans did not stand up and protest when the US kidnapped and renditioned people from other lands.
It sure reminds me of the first they came for......... saying.
Al Queda does not exist. Just as there was never a south Vietnam both were created for propaganda purposes. I refer to JFK who never identified a south Vietnam, just a Vietnam and this sent the then warmongers, Curtis LeMay most notably, into assassination mode.Having stopped 6 wars in his 3 years the MIC was having fits and they wanted the war in Vietnam badly. Al-Queda was conjured up by the USG for propaganda purposes to create war, endless war. As for his threatened veto, Obomber has never acted as a president of the USA, HE'S THE PRESIDENT of special interests which want wars.
The preparations for martial law continue. The day draws closer. As when the bankruptcy reform laws were rearranged before TSHTF with the economy (they knew what was coming) they're doing the same regarding civil unrest.
And yes, the terrorists have won. They won the day the Patriot Act was signed into law by the corrupt and criminal one-party system.
Isn't much left that can be done at this point except prepare, and – for what its worth – support Ron Paul. Would love to see Paul & Ventura go the indy route as a team. We have got to stop Washington and it's 1%.
The "enemy" in the minds of the authorities in charge of security at the Toronto G20 summit were described as "individuals and/or organizations at odds with the status quo and the current distribution of power in society". There is no reason to not assume that this definition might eventually inform the intent of this legislation, if it doesn't already.
The libertarians have been consistent in opposing such measures based on constitutional principles. Common cause can be found with them on these matters and it is foolhardy to reject such coalitions of interest out of hand.
"“Our expectation is the president will follow through with this.”"
It's foolish to have any expectations of this president. Especially when it comes to defying the "3 Amigos" (Graham, McCain and Lieberman). And I know Liberman wasn't mentioned in the article, but you can be sure he'll support it.
Carl Levin and McCain "negotiated" this together. Obama only threatens veto because he wants to retain this (illegal) power for the Presidency.
This is beyond unbelievable. Move over Patriot Act.
And yes, why does Matthew fail to note the bipartisanship in the crafting of this piece of shit?
Wow "the whole world is the battlefield" this from Lindsey Graham who has never seen one. There is nothing like a bunch of old men playing at war and domination in their little clubby den of privilege. Clearly few of our leaders care about the Constitution at all. Throw them all out, recall them for Treason. These people are useless trash destroying the planet and the social contract. They have no redeeming social value they are obscene.
Oh great movement on a jobs bill...Guantanamo will be hring, more private supermax prisons for the 80 year old women who demonstrate and threaten national insecurity....I've this before but it must be repeated. A very dear family friend, a retired attorney with politics VERY left of what was the center 10 years ago asked me how England, the 'mother' of modern jurisprudence and the concept of habeus corpus, due process, the right of the accused to confront the accuser, and trial by a jury of one's peers could suspend all of the above as it did in the early 70's. He said he could not believe the US would do the same thing.We had the conversation again post Guantanamo and the Patriot Acts, he shook his head and said ...This is the begining of a downward slide undermining and negating very basic rights first granted in 1215! He is no longer with us to witness how right he was.
Is it a coincidence that every single article about this praises Ron Paul?
I smell a rat.
This is an excellent example of a disinformation campaign, being run by Ron Paul supporters.The arrests and detention of "terrorists" and "sympathizers" has been going on all along. This is not new.
The ACLU blogger is promoting Ron Paul, and the ACLU, Progressive, Common Dreams et al are being duped, and so are we.
Citing Lindsay Graham (!!?) as the source that "proves" the ACLU blogger's thesis should set off alarm bells. Quoting the same handful of sources back and forth over and over again to make it look as though evidence is building or a consensus is growing is a classic trick used in disinformation campaigns.
Since all of us here are opposed to the Patriot Act and the growing police state and the destruction of the Bill of Rights, we are willing to listen to anyone who seems to be "on our side." That is being used against us, used in a dishonest way to promote the candidacy of Ron Paul and to move people over to accepting extreme right wing political positions.