Trump, Terrorism and the Constitution

I hate to be controversial. It would appear that we live in a world of pro- or anti-Trumpers, and somewhere in the middle just got left out.

The US is far outside its proper box, constructed by the Constitution, and it seems that getting one foot in causes an arm to flail out. So it was, even before the ink was dry, as Patrick Henry pointed out in his delegation’s “Minority Report”, where 14 key loopholes were found in the Constitution, causing the creation of the Bill of Rights, which only fixed 10 of them.

9/11 created the Patriot Act that has effectively given even more power to the federal government far beyond the constitutional bounds we were designed with – holes and all.

One of these things I wanted to point out here is the familiar label “terrorist”, which is being bandied about a lot these days. The term is ill-defined. The legal definition can be found here.

A terrorist is a person who commits certain crimes for certain reasons. The term strips rights from “normal” criminals who could commit the very same acts but for different reasons. It is a huge loophole that can be used at any time to make someone’s life far more difficult and more quickly than would a “normal” criminal.

It also has the neuro-linguistic function of removing any thought of “innocent until proven guilty” from the minds of most news readers.

Of course, “due process” is a terribly inconvenient issue when one is trying to “Make America Great Again” and only has 4 years to do so. This can be even more compelling to justify when the previous administration committed treason on a massive scale, leaving the country in yet another “emergency” or “crisis”.

Having been “indefinitely detained” myself in the British colony of The Cayman Islands, I know how it feels to be in a prison cell for doing something I had considered quite lawful only to be asked to provide all the self-incriminating evidence the authorities wanted or else the “indefinite” period of time for my detention could be years. I’m sure our January 6th detainees can relate.

Remember, we now have people keying Teslas declared as “domestic terrorists” even if they weren’t paid by George Soros to do so. Also, someone considered an “anti-semite” might fall under the definition of an “international terrorist” as well.

Overall, I love the Trump/Musk demolition team in principle but it lacks true “due process”, but maybe it is justified. But when does the justification stop?

We are so far from the true “rule of law” that the chaos and loss of due process are becoming far too common.

How do we know when we are finally back to “law and order”?

When the government at all levels and in all branches actually obeys its own constitutions and laws.

---

For those who want to know more, here is a query I just gave GROK on this subject:

Can you give me a brief difference in the rights of a normal criminal vs a domestic or international terrorist?

The rights of a normal criminal versus a domestic or international terrorist can differ significantly depending on the legal framework, jurisdiction, and specific circumstances. Here’s a brief overview:

Normal Criminal

A “normal” criminal—someone accused of crimes like theft, assault, or murder—typically falls under standard criminal justice systems (e.g., in the U.S., the Constitution and local laws). Their rights often include:

• Right to a fair trial: Presumption of innocence, legal representation, and a public trial by jury.
• Protection against self-incrimination: They can remain silent (e.g., Fifth Amendment in the U.S.).
• Due process: Arrest, charges, and evidence must follow established legal procedures.
• Limits on detention: They cannot be held indefinitely without charges or a trial.

Domestic Terrorist

A domestic terrorist—someone committing acts of violence within their own country for ideological, political, or social goals—may face enhanced legal measures:

• Expanded surveillance and investigation: Laws like the U.S. PATRIOT Act allow broader monitoring and data collection.
• Harsher penalties: Acts classified as terrorism often carry longer sentences or mandatory minimums.
• Trial rights: They retain most standard rights (e.g., fair trial), but public perception and national security concerns can complicate proceedings.
• Detention: In some cases, they may be held longer pre-trial under “material support” or national security provisions.

International Terrorist

An international terrorist—someone operating across borders or linked to foreign groups—may face even more distinct treatment:

• Military jurisdiction: In places like the U.S., they might be classified as “enemy combatants” and tried in military tribunals (e.g., Guantanamo Bay) rather than civilian courts, with fewer procedural protections.
• Indefinite detention: They can sometimes be held without trial under national security laws or wartime authority (e.g., Authorization for Use of Military Force).
• Limited rights: Access to lawyers, evidence transparency, and speedy trials may be curtailed compared to civilian courts.
• Extradition or rendition: They may be transferred between countries, sometimes outside normal legal processes.

Key Difference

The main distinction lies in scope and severity: normal criminals are processed through civilian justice systems with robust rights, while terrorists (especially international ones) may fall under national security or military frameworks, where rights can be restricted for public safety or intelligence reasons. Domestic terrorists often sit in a gray area, retaining more rights than international terrorists but facing stricter measures than typical criminals.

This varies by country—some nations treat all cases similarly, while others (like the U.S.) draw sharp legal lines.