Reply With Quote
And if the gov. s up and goes after the wrong guy?
Ive been drinking a lot of coffee lately...
And if the gov. s up and goes after the wrong guy?
It is not just "people like me". It is the whole world.
Tell ya what, how about you and I go in search of newspaper articles from around the world about Gitmo.
What do you think the balance of those stories will say?
The people whose minds we are trying to change read those papers, and Gitmo is a huge PR loss every day that it is open and no trials are given.
Once again, this war on terror is a war of ideas.
How does holding people indefinitely without fair trials and torturing them combat the idea that we are evil?
Understand what? That you're willing to accept wholesale pullback of cons utional rights, claiming that all such limitations on rights are somehow essential to fighting a war on terror? If that's what you think I understand, I'm certain that I understand that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on that point. Of course, my understanding of that point isn't exactly news to me. Fighting a war on terror is a curious proxy for imposing the sort of quasi-totalitarian principles that you are so willing to espouse.
My opposition to the limitation of civil rights would seem to be my prerogative -- for now at least. I have the sense that if the Administration could compel me to toe the line and accept its view that rights are available at the whim of government, it would.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/us/02terror.html
Wait Ends for Father and Son Exiled by F.B.I. Terror Inquiry
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: October 2, 2006
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1 - Two American citizens of Pakistani descent returned to the United States on Sunday, five months after they were denied permission to fly home to California unless they submitted to an interrogation by F.B.I. terrorism investigators.
...
Legal experts said the matter raised questions about balancing terrorism investigations against American citizens’ right to travel freely without having been charged with a crime or detained as a suspect.
...
Wholesale? Totalitarian?
Please explain to me what changes have occurred in your life that translate to a wholesale rollback of your rights and the application of totalitarian principles?
Hyperbole doesn't really support an argument well.
Notice Yoni didn't respond to this one either... I know he has me on ignore, but seems to have *reality* on ignore as well.
Ignore-ance is bliss.
Wholesale might be hyperbole, but I can't exactly say that I've taken any great pains to consider or carefully edit my words here. Nevertheless, I never said totalitarian -- I said "quasi-totalitarian," which isn't hyperbole. If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states. That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.
I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Cons utional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most cir stances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of cons utional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.
CAT5 response; ironically, it's calm, cool and collected.
Last edited by Guru of Nothing; 10-03-2006 at 11:41 PM.
This is one of the better posts I have seen a while.
Seriously though.
(^fixed to make steam come out of Yoni's ears)Wholesale might be hyperbole, but I can't exactly say that I've taken any great pains to consider or carefully edit my words here. Nevertheless, I never said totalitarian -- I said "quasi-totalitarian," which isn't hyperbole. If the government is holding individuals and torturing them based on political views, that's strikingly similar to the sorts of reprehensible things that occur in totalitarian states. That those individuals might not be American citizens does not change my view on that point.
I'm not sure why you're fixated on my proving some change in my life to demonstrate that Cons utional rights have been rolled back. The truth is that in most cir stances, the manner in which I live my day-to-day life does not (yet) involve me in legal issues of cons utional magnitude. So, if you believe that you can contend that my point is without merit because I haven't dealt with the sorts of infringements that have been cited by many others via stories posted in this forum, I'm certain that your argument is ridiculous. That the government is demonstrably limiting rights doesn't rise or fall on what goes on in my life or in yours. Its rather simplistic, I think, to make such an argument.
Where are you alleging this is occurring?
Non-Americans held as enemy combatants is fine by me. I don't see that as a political issue but a security issue.
First, because this is the mantra of the left. George W. Bush has trashed the cons ution and abolished many of our rights. I'd just like to know how those who are claiming this have been adversely affected by these claims.
I'd settle for some sign that more than the odd individual American has had to contend with these losses of freedom, liberty, and rights.
I think you need to demonstrate where the government is demonstrably limiting a significant number of American Citizens' rights before you have an argument.
If the government is demonstrably and unlawfully limiting the rights of any American citizen, it's too much.
I understand that you're willing to cede the liberty of some for your own sense of security. I'm not.
In the far-off places that the government takes those it believes to be sympathetic to "Islamofacists." Americans and non-Americans alike.
Is it your contention, then, that if it hasn't happened to me, that it isn't really happening? that the reporting of such infringements in quarters outside the bounds of my own life is something that is irrelevant? that if it only happens to those who I don't know, it's really not that bad?
I assume that the people being held in any manner by the US Government are being held because the government has evidence that gives the cause to deny freedom to these individuals. If that is the case, then why are we unwilling to present this evidence in a court in order to provide the detainees with due process. Why is this such a horrendous expectation from our government?
I am not willing to give this government - or any government for that matter - the abilit to imprison persons without having to give cause for taking such an action. Every cause in the history of mankind has been hijacked in the past, so why would the current sense of national insecurity be any different? Is there anyone here who actualy believes that the US government is above using power irresponsibly?
The principles of the Cons ution are not in place because we have special rights due to our citizenship. The Declaration of Independence does not state that all men born in the United States are created equal. There are underlying principles that both of those do ents point to and acknowlegde are fundemental to all individuals, not just those of American citizenship.
Good post Manny, but this administration has created a culture where no rule is safe. They have the support of the religious right and dare the rest of america to challenge them.
Presume the evidence was provided by a source or method by which the exposure of it would seriously hamper our efforts in prosecuting the war.
And, why do you immediately assume the right to due process is being violated? What makes you believe due process in civil litigation or criminal prosecution are the same -- or even should be the same -- as due process for enemy combatants.
In mind opinion, these people are getting way more process than they are due.
The cause is these people were captured on the field of battle and are identified as enemy combatants.
Cause enough for me.
Nope. But, you've yet to demonstrate this is the case here. And, just because a power may be abused is no reason to eliminate that power.
Back to the question. Are the detainees receiving all the process to which they are due? I say yes.
Really? So, you equate taking up arms on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, against the United States and other coalition allies merely being "sympathetic to 'Islamofascists'?"
Interesting.
No, it's my contention there is no wholesale rollback of rights, liberties, or freedoms -- especially for American Citizens -- but, even for non-citizens as well.
Anectdotal stories about the odd occurrence notwithstanding, you cannot point to any statute or practice of the federal government that eliminates any cons utional rights for anyone.
I say odd occurrences because, you can find stories of just about anything occurring on a limited or one-time basis. For instance, the Supreme Court recently overturned a lower court regarding the seizure of firearms in a disaster.
This was a violation of a persons right to bear arms. While the law may have been right-minded, it was a rollback of our cons utional rights. I wasn't affected and, further, I don't believe the intention was malicious. I also don't believe such a huge number of persons were involved as it could be equated to being "quasi-totalitarian" either.
It was a situation rectified by the courts as I predict all the other cons utional questions -- regarding the war on terror -- will be. So far, the administration's treatment of detainees has been consistent with previous administrations in previous wars and there has been no intervening legislation that would have directed the administration to treat them any differently than had previous administrations.
As the Supreme Court has dealt with the legal issues raised in the current conflict, the administration has set about accommodating the court's findings.
In a war, I'm not going to ask my government to voluntarily divine new and improved treatments of enemy combatants. They were merely relying on the precendents set by previous administrations and now that they're getting new direction from the Supreme Court, they are making the necessary changes. And, ironically, being criticized for that as well.
They can't win.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/
October 9, 2006, 10:43 am
Habeas Corpus in a Terrorist War
University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein, an influential legal conservative, takes to the Op-Ed page of The Wall Street Journal to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the provision in the recently passed Military Commissions Act that denies prisoners the right to judicial review of their detentions: “The Supreme Court should enforce the cons utional guarantee that Congress has authorized the president to ignore.” [$]
The Military Commissions Act “strips [prisoners] of their right to habeas corpus — unwisely removing an indispensable and long-standing check on the abuse of executive power,” Epstein writes. He later adds, “Lawful imprisonment, second only to lawful infliction of death, is the hallmark of state power. In any system of limited government, such loss of liberty should be hedged by strong procedural protections unless some grave public necessity requires its suspension.” He continues:
By eliminating habeas review for Guantanamo detainees, the MCA has jettisoned the fundamental right of any prisoner to test the lawfulness of his detention. You may immediately object: Why, if ordinary prisoners of war may be detained for the duration of the conflict without habeas corpus — as in World War II, the Korean War or the Vietnam War — should the writ be available to unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terror? Because context matters. In conflicts between states, the prisoners are uniformed soldiers. We know they are combatants, we know what counts as the end of the war, and habeas serves no useful role. In a terrorist war, with nonuniformed combatants and chaotic battlefield conditions, wide military sweeps make sense — but only if we take steps after the heat of battle to allow detainees to challenge their status.
Without meaningful judicial review, innocent people could be arbitrarily or erroneously imprisoned, indefinitely.
Last month at National Review’s The Corner, Jonah Goldberg wanted “an honest broker” to explain “in a clear-headed and nonpartisan manner” to explain whether Americans can be held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, under the Military Commissions Act. Perhaps Epstein, who has contributed to Goldberg’s magazine, will suffice. The Military Commissions Act, Epstein writes, “allows the government to hold any prisoner — even if he is not an unlawful enemy combatant — in custody for the rest of his life, with no due process and no recourse to the courts.”
Epstein also describes the “grossly deficient” process the law established to review an individual’s status as an enemy combatant: “It denies a detainee the assistance of counsel. It prohibits him from seeing the evidence against him. It lets the government alone decide what evidence the tribunal sees; it lets the government rely on evidence consisting of double or even triple hearsay; and it lets military superiors override tribunal decisions and fire tribunal members when they disapprove of their decisions.”
Epstein does see reason for hope: “Happily, the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate this part of the M.C.A. The Cons ution states that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only when rebellion or invasion endangers public safety. That’s not the case here: A world of difference separates the risk of future terrorist acts from a present invasion on American soil.”
=============
But Puto Gonzalez, and the Yonivores, and right-wing drones reading from lists of Repug talking points, will overhype that every prisoneer under MCA, even 10K miles away from USA, is an immediate mortal threat to entire USA and all its 300 M people.
Falsely "immediate" in the same sense that bogusly invading Iraq 7 months before the 2003 election was the only option, the immediate option, since dubya had an election to win and head needed a platform/pretext to expand Exec power gratuitously, imperially beyond reach of checks and balances.
As the majority of American people see now, the phony Iraq war had/has nothing to do with the war on terror. Iraq is a HUGE strategic up by the Repugs.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-10-2006 at 12:11 PM.
Who cares what some law professor thinks? [/Yonivore]
You see that single little word is the core of the problem.
Yep I guess most liberals feel the same way when
it comes to someone they disagree with.
View this little film clip about how the liberals
feel about someone that was invited to come to
a university to present their views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnn7wTgoE8
A protest doesn't invalidate anyone's rights. The guy still could have said what he wanted to say -- he has no cons utional right to be allowed to say it without interference, so don't act as though his rights were somehow done away with by the protest.
Being made to stop a speech because protesters disagree with your viewpoint is a far cry from willfully curtailing habeas corpus protections for those who are in U.S. custody without being charged or tried for the offenses that form the basis for detention.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
