Web Opinion by Todd Beezley

 
With information feeding into our collective consciousness at 56 kilobytes per second or faster, it’s sometimes hard to sort out internet fact from fiction.

For several years now, we’ve heard warnings from a select group of patriotic individuals who are concerned about the progressive loss of our Constitutional rights. They pointed to the yellow fringe that adorned U.S. flags in federal courtrooms, claiming such flags should only rightly be flown in Admiralty courts, military tribunals that offer few of the legal protections we take for granted in our criminal court system.

They claimed the use of such "admiralty flags" in civilian courtrooms showed we were already living under martial law and that the constitutional rights we had been taking for granted could be suspended at any time.

With so many "hard news" stories dominating our radar screen, it’s been easy to ignore such minutiae or write off such ramblings as the insignificant rantings of "fringe elements." At least that’s how the mainstream media would like us to respond, if at all.

But the times are changing.

Literally.

Wednesday’s New York Times was quick to report on President Bush’s decision to sign a Presidential directive that would allow military trials for "foreign" terrorists and those who have "knowingly harbored" terrorists. The president, himself, would determine whether and when such tribunals should take place.

The government claimed military trials would shield civilian jurors from retribution by terrorist networks and could also protect government intelligence sources.

While no specific mention of admiralty flags and yellow fringe found their way into the Times piece, the substance and not the symbolism of the patriots’ warnings had at last found its way onto the doorsteps of America.

And who should quickly pick up the standard first raised by the conservative right? None other than the ACLU!

The Director of the ACLU’s Washington National Office, Laura W. Murphy responded to the president’s tribunal directive as "deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy."

For once, we must agree with the ACLU. The problem with precedents is that, once established, even for use with the most noble of intentions and initially limited to foreign subjects, those tyrannical rulings can be dusted off for use and abuse domestically under less extreme circumstances.

Consider this scenario. Let’s say, five years from now, a sternly anti-Christian administration has taken control in Washington. The definition of the word "terrorist" has been expanded to include Americans who "commit violence" against the prevailing and acceptable belief system of the world by spreading their divisive doctrines.

Christians have become criminals based not on their actions but their beliefs.

Under the precedent of the directive signed Tuesday by President Bush, anyone offering them assistance could be guilty of harboring terrorists and subject to trial by military tribunal, as well.

We know that such methods will be used by the anti-Christ system in the days leading up to the Lord’s return…but as salt and light in this world, Christians should be prepared to voice their concerns and act to defend our God-given freedoms while we still have them.

The end of this age clearly is in sight.
 
 

WebToday columnists are available for talk show interviews.
Please contact Special Guests for availability

4.9¢ long distance from WebToday: Online sign-up takes 30 seconds