http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18524-2002May1.html
First of all, let me say I’m pleased to note that it’s a news source and not an op ed piece.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t support your contention that r/w parties are making a comeback in Europe.
it does suggest that the major parties are concerned that in two British cities, an extremist party might pick up a local election seat .
and it would be considered huge since
and that the media is taking notice
I don’t think this (“might” win two small local elections) quite rises to substantiate a claim of “making a comeback in Europe”
What Wring said and more :D.
Its making news because it is so far from the norm of British politics where the system is skewed against minor parties. This means that every ten or fifteen years a left wing or right wing extreme group comes close to the threshold of gaining a seat and it makes big news.
In recent polls, the ‘other’ category has been 2-3%. The facist vote would be in this if there was strong identification with a cause. When the facists get above that level, they are picking up populist anti-immigrant votes.
I would also point out that I find it galling to be lectured about the far right and race by people from a nation which excluded almost all blacks over a large part of the country from voting by a variety of means within my living memory (i.e. up until the sixties).
This has never been the case in Western Europe except during the Hitler era. Apart from then, all citizens of whatever race have been enfranchised. The USA certainly cannot make a similar claim.
Additionally, most European countries have illiberal (by US standards) of limits on free-speech regarding racial matters. Many of the statements made by racists in the US which are fully protected would be illegal in most of western Europe.
So, perhaps a real cite for:
*1/ Any government in Western Europe ‘tolerating’ defacing synagogues and attacking Jews on the street.
2/ far right-wing parties are making a comeback in Europe.*
or just admit that you were shooting from the hip without any real evidence.
Yes, I was shooting from the hip, but the shot hit the target, according to this article from The Spectator by Canadian pundit, Mark Steyn. The article has facts to support its anti-European tone.
december, you’re back to op-ed punditry. Tsk tsk tsk…wring will be so disappointed in you.
I agree that the intelligence community- as well as the Bush and Clinton administrations in managing, budgeting, and directing those agencies- failed big-time. However…
And what exactly would the airlines have been able to do without being subject to a lawsuit? Could they have told the ‘suspect’ that he would not be allowed to fly upon a plane because he was a ‘suspect’- not formally charged, certainly not sent to a grand jury- in a different case? Would that not have been the subject of immediate outrage by civil rights groups and editorialists across the nation? If they had searched the suspect and found… nothing? Maybe a box-cutter? Does that somehow prove intent?
Sigh. You completely miss my point. My point is exactly the same as what you’re trying to argue- that one cannot trade civil liberty for security. I agree with that.
But guess what? Most people don’t agree with us. Most people would be willing to give up their liberty on the off-chance that it gains them some security. Most people were screaming on 9/12 and 9/13 that something be done, and that something they meant wasn’t “accept that terrorist attacks will happen so long as we intend to be a free country.”
And so liberties were curtailed. But what was the other option? Do you really think that had Bush- or, if you’re the kind that prefers the term “Dumbya”, any President- could have gone on television, stated, “These attacks will happen again and again, because we are free people and we cannot give up our freedoms for security”, and not been either immediately impeached or overthrown in mass demonstrations? As in the Great Depression, as in the Civil War, there was an overwhelming popular demand to do something, anything.
And so Bush and Ashcroft round up some usual suspects and break some heads and bend the Constitution. But they can do that knowing that people will eventually calm down, and courts will eventually throw out their actions- no real harm, especially when compared to the violence that would have erupted in non-action. The same solution FDR found (twice); the same solution Lincoln used.
[Fixed the coding. -JMCJ]
A federal district judge in New York confidently opines that a Ninth Circuit opinion is ‘wrong’.
Interestingly enough, her own decision cannot create any precedent, and is subject to appeal.
If the Second Circuit decides as Judge Scheindlin did, this will create a conflict in the circuits – that is, in California, federal authorities may obtain a material witness warrant to secure a witness’ appearance before a grand jury, while in New York, they cannot. The situation would then become ripe for decision by ther Supreme Court.
Judge Scheindlin’s opinion makes much of the phrase “criminal proceeding” as it is used in 18 U.S.C. § 3144, the material witness statue. She interprets this to mean a proceeding in which criminal charges have been filed, and not a grand jury proceeding, which merely presages the possible issuance of an indictment. However, “criminal proceeding” is a phrase that has been applied to grand jury proceedings many times in the past when the witness therein was the target of the grand jury investigation, and the grand jury process is held to the same level of due process as other critical stages in criminal prosecution.
In other words, I don’t believe that this opinion is on as rock-solid grounds as some posters above seem to think. There is a fair chance that the material witness statute will be held to permit such detentions, when it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the witness by subpoena, and if a judicial officer orders the arrest of the person, and if the the testimony of the witness cannot adequately be secured by deposition – all of which happened here.
- Rick
JC: And what exactly would the airlines have been able to do without being subject to a lawsuit?
Well, they could have informed the FBI, which was actively looking for those particular suspects in order to question them but had not succeeded in locating them, when the suspects bought their tickets. FBI agents could have shown up at the boarding of the aircraft, and those suspects might never even have got on the plane—without any invasion of privacy on the part of the airlines. As this article notes,
*But guess what? Most people don’t agree with us. Most people would be willing to give up their liberty on the off-chance that it gains them some security. Most people were screaming on 9/12 and 9/13 that something be done, and that something they meant wasn’t “accept that terrorist attacks will happen so long as we intend to be a free country.”
And so liberties were curtailed. But what was the other option? Do you really think that had Bush- or, if you’re the kind that prefers the term “Dumbya”, any President- could have gone on television, stated, “These attacks will happen again and again, because we are free people and we cannot give up our freedoms for security”, and not been either immediately impeached or overthrown in mass demonstrations? As in the Great Depression, as in the Civil War, there was an overwhelming popular demand to do something, anything.*
(Note: I don’t refer to the POTUS by derogatory nicknames, nor do I consider him particularly stupid or incapable.) You seem to be assuming that when the populace “demands that something, anything” be done, what they’re demanding is the restriction of civil liberties; I don’t see that, myself. I agree that there was a strong public outcry post-9/11 to get some action taken, and that it wouldn’t have sat well with most people for the President to admit that such dangers are to some extent inescapable—though I seriously doubt that the reaction would have been anything like as dramatic as what you’re suggesting.
But I don’t believe that the public demands couldn’t have been satisfied without curtailing liberties. I think that the heightened security measures that could be legally and constitutionally taken, such as increasing airport security, creating a Cabinet position and allocating new funds to deal with terrorism, cracking down on offshore money laundering that funnels funds to terrorists, etc. etc. etc., plus whatever military response was necessary, would have reassured citizens that the problem was being taken seriously.
You’re assuming a dichotomy in which the only two possible options are (a) serious curtailment of liberties and (b) a helpless admission that hey, these things happen and there’s nothing we can do about it: in other words, that unconstitutional measures are what Bush and Ashcroft have to take or else the nation will crumble. I think that’s a false dichotomy.
The government can take effective measures without infringing on people’s rights but these measures cannot prevent everything that may happen, only provide a reasonable level of security.
Governments which go beyond this and step all over people’s rights to prevent terrorism or other unlawful acts may have a slightly better chance but at a huge social cost which is never worth paying. In any case they still cannot guarantee absolute prevention. You only have to turn to countries like China or the Soviet Union to see a huge loss of civil liberties does not guarantee prevention of crime or terrorism and ensures losing all your civil rights.
I am astounded that december does not get this. He defends a loss in civil rights in exchange for security but he doesn’t get the loss is real while the security is just a mirage.
After reading the thread about the crazy military plans in the 60s to provoke a war with Cuba I am reinforced in my position that the more limited the power of the government, the more checks and balances, the better. Because you never know when some crazy guys acting to defend the country will go over the edge.
I just came acoss a
[quote by Teddy Roosevelt]
(http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm) which seems quite appropriate. “No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency”
He also said “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”
and
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” (1918)
With other quotes I agree less so I won’t repeat them _
[list=1]
[li]According to Bricker, Ashcroft’s action may have been proper and legal. At the very least, it was plausibly legal.[/li][li]We have taken enormous losses in civil liberties during past wars, but afterwards full liberty was restored.[/li][li]I do not understand the statement, “security is just a mirage.” Can you amplify the meaning?[/li][/list=1]
Ask someone who spent time in the internment camps during WWII and see if they agree with you.
:rolleyes:
yeppers, that’s what I want from our Attorney General - a goal of “plausibly legal”.
Why not?
The Attorney General runs the Justice Department. He is not a neutral party. He is the prosecutor. His job is to zealously, but legally, represent the government in prosecuting accused criminals.
Criminal statues are construed strictly against the government. It is the function of the judiciary to find facts and interpret law in the ultimate trial of an accused, after hearing zealous prosecution and zealous defense.
It’s true that the sides are not mirror images – for example, the defense does not stop their work even if convinced of factual guilt, while the prosecutor has an independent duty to prosecute only the guilty, and factual innocence will cause the prosecutor to stop his efforts. But this does not forestall a prosecutor from making a legally cognizeable argument – in this case, with no controlling authority in the Second Circuit, and a Ninth Circuit case that supports the position - even if it’s dicta - there’s nothing wrong with arguing vigorously in support of the position.
Wring, I suspect that what you mean is you’d prefer an Attorney General that supported your political position with regards to individual liberty. I don’t doubt it - I’m sure each of us would like government officials to support their view. But some of the responses above seem to suggest that Attorney General Ashcroft was acting improperly, unethically, or without deference to exsiting law. That’s not so, at least as far as the facts in this case.
- Rick
But the operative word there is “might”. How many of the 20 involved in the 9/11 attacks had active warrants out for them? Or, if they were only wanted for questioning, could the FBI have actively prevented them from boarding the plane? And again- had the FBI arrested or incarcerated the bombers on the morning of 9/11 on the flimsy excuse of “we needed to ask them some questions about a theft case”, wouldn’t all the laments in this thread about Ashcroft not caring for civil rights or the Constitution simply have been applied to him in regards for those arrested the morning of 9/10?
Again- there was nothing our justice system could have done within the framework of the Constitution that would have prevented the 9/11 attack.
Understood; my apologies if you felt I was either talking down to or insulting you through that statement.
My perception may well be colored by living in the DC area and having friends who lived in the NYC area; fears of “what’s going to be next and when’s it going to happen?” ran damned high around here.
“Taken seriously”, yes. “Having immediate effect”- there’s the rub. All of the things you’ve mentioned were done, but implementation didn’t begin until at least a month after the attacks, and for some of those issues- increasing security at airports, increased funding for intelligence agencies- true benefits won’t be seen for months yet to come.
Rounding up “possible suspects”- that could be done immediately and show government action and response and seriousness in the wake of the attack. It just couldn’t be done particularly constitutionally.
I don’t. Again, the three largest crises this country has faced- the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II- were reacted to with a serious curtailment of liberties, or at least as serious as the one currently going on.
And in two of these cases, the crises were met with a “well, there’s nothing we can do”, and the country did begin to crumble. James Buchanan was President when the South began to secede, and because he wouldn’t lift a finger, the Confederacy was able to embezzle a great deal of munitions and equipment, which prolonged the Civil War by years- certainly, without that equipment, the Confederacy would have had no hope to gain independence. Likewise, Hoover reacted to the Great Depression with “Constitutionally, there’s nothing the government can do, so we hope big business lands on its feet and takes care of the little people.” Hoover’s inaction and inability to see the government as a solution caused a huge upswing in the memberships of more radical organizations with more radical solutions, like the Communist Party, Long’s Populist Party, and followers of Father Coughlin.
actually, Bricker regardless of political ideology, I’d personally prefer that our Attorney General actually abide by the laws vs. decembers’ suggestion that he acts in a ‘plausibly legal’ manner. That phrasing reminded me of a scene in “the Firm” where Cruise is asking “how far do you want the law bent”.
The single person in charge of our Justice Department should be in the position of enforcing our laws, not bending them to suit his own political ideology, IMHO (understanding that he’s an appointed position yaddy yaddy yaddy.)
>> at the very least it was plausibly legal
An English judge disagrees with you. He could not find the plausibility anywhere.
>> I do not understand the statement, “security is just a mirage.” Can you amplify the meaning?
What do you need explained? My point is that countries which gave up liberties to gain safety and order do not have any more of that, and they aften have less. Look at countries like China where they do not bother with legal formalities for criminals and terrorists. They execute more people than the rest of the world combined… and yet they have crime and terrorism. The loss of freedom does not buy them an exemption from crime and in the case of terrorism it may even make it worse.
I keep wondering how strongly would december be defending Ashcroft’s actions if Ashcroft was going after him. Somehow I can’t quite picture this scenario:
Ding Dong
december: Yes?
John Ashcroft: Mr. december? John Ashcroft, attorney general here. We suspect you might be a terrorist.
december: I haven’t done anything illegal.
Ashcroft: That’s not what our hunches say, sir.
december: So what do you want?
Ashcroft: I’m here to take you into custody, lock you up, ask a bunch of questions, and maybe let you go when I get some satisfactory answers.
december: …okay. Let’s go. Honey, don’t wait up!
Well, I’m not sure “bending” or “plausibly legal” are fair characterizations. Ashcroft makes a colorable argument, supported by a decision in another federal circuit, and not contradicted by any case law in the circuit in question. There doesn’t seem to me to be any bending here. Indeed, even Ashcroft’s appeal won’t bend the law, since the Justice Department is entitled to seek appellate review of the adverse decision.
Indeed, as I said earlier, I feel Judge Scheindlin’s decision was in error, and the Justice Department’s appeal will permit the circuit court to correctly apply the law.
Of course, that may not happen. In that case, the Supreme Court may act to resolve the conflict in the circuits. Then, finally, the definitive word will be had on the issue. Until then, I don’t see any bending here.
- Rick
Rick the ‘plausibly legal’ position was advanced by december, characertizing Ashcroft. My point was that we’d hope for something a little closer to ‘law enforcing’ than ‘plausibly legal’ from The Attorney General.
I thought it peculiar that some one who apparently is in agreement w/Ashcrofts’ position would use that particular term, since it does, admitedly, sound, well, not complimentary.