John Walker was with the Taliban at the time when it was more or less friendly to American governmental interests, until a few months after 9/11, when he got captured. Perhaps as a nod to potential difficulties to get out of the Taliban, the government decided to try him in criminal court.
So here is a question: what if you are in a group that all of a sudden was banned or outlawed, and you really can’t get out of said group without certain loss of life? What rights should one get, and what obligations does one have, when she finds herself in that predicament?
Well then, thank goodness al Queda has no designs on detaining us in deprivation of our rights. As long as they just want to kill us, that will be fine.
. . . But what about our right to life? Doesn’t killing us deprive us of our right to life, and our right to due process of law? And of course, if they detain us and then kill us . . . well, now I’m confused.
So even without pointing out that what the White House is doing does not fit the definition of “terrorism” (oops, I guess I just pointed that out), I still don’t see how kidnapping and killing is any less of a threat than indefinite detentions under color of law.
Kudos to you, sir, for your dedication to libertarian values. And if it were just you and I in this country, I think that would be fine. But we’re not dealing with only our lives. We’re dealing with the lives of all of my friends and family. I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. And luckily, you don’t get to make that choice for everyone.
I am not convinced of his guilt. Nor am I convinced of his innocence. But more importantly, I am not convinced that Bush has violated the Constitution by detaining him.
Only those in power get to make that choice. So your desire for a “slightly more authoritarian state” would happen without your input. Your definition of slightly more probably would not coincide with those who make such decisions.
As I’ve pointed out, those sections don’t apply here. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can believe the Supreme Court. See Ex parte Quirin.
Interesting. So what do you suppose they mean by “enemies, foreign and domestic”?
And it doesn’t matter if the invading army stopped and camped out in America for a few years, and even picked up a few converts along the way. They’re still an invading army. They’re an outside force trying to overthrow the government. That’s an invading army. The mere fact that they use terrorist techniques and don’t represent an organized state doesn’t make them any less an invading army.
We haven’t thrown out any part of the Constitution yet. Except, of course, for the amendments. And those haven’t exactly been Lay’s potato chips so far (i.e., “Once we popped, we could stop.”).
Among others, yes. But I’ve already covered this a few times, so I’ll try not to clog up the server with repeats.
No, it doesn’t. If you think it does, I’d encourage you to show me which portion of the Patriot Act authorizes or even advocates secret detentions. I feel confident that you won’t be able to find one.
Cite, please?
I’m aware that many foreign nationals have been detained and deported. But we do that all the time with illegal aliens. I’m very curious where you’re getting this allegation that we have no idea how many foreign nationals are being detained under the Patriot Act, since the Act includes very specific reporting requirements on the Justice Dept. And I’m also curious where you’re getting this idea that the Patriot Act gagged anyone – especially the ACLU – from challenging the Patriot Act, especially since no one else seems to have any trouble challenging the Patriot Act.
If the ACLU was prohibited by the Patriot Act from challenging the Patriot Act, then who do you think told us about it? Couldn’t have been the ACLU, right?
Sure, you can vote – but there will only be one name on the ballot, because all the other candidates will be sent to Gitmo as “enemy combatants.”
On a related note, I’ve heard that the government refuses to allow judicial scrutiny of the camps at Gitmo on the basis that the land is under Cuban jurisdiction. Hmmm… does that mean we’d have to let the terrorists go if Castro says so?
Anyway, you are applying to this specific only. The point is what the possibilities are for all future executives in time of war. You may not decide that someone is an enemy combatant on the basis of race or or national heritage or religion or party affiliation (Arab, Japanese, Democrat, Republican, Green, Communist, Liberterian, Moslem, whatever) but some future President could, and the accused citizen could be locked up indefinitely on the basis of the Executive Branch’s say so that they have evidence that the person is an enemy. No communication with counsel. No Judicial review. No need to bring the evidence for review.
Let us presume that the current Executive’s evidence against this particular individual is better than the assessment pre-invasion of WMD’s, and that the intent is most noble. Then bring it through the courts. What you give Bush today you will be unable to take away from any President that follows. Such power become the one ring; it will be abused. Maybe not by this administration, but by some future one. And it will be legal if these actions stand.
And here I thought liberals were always screeching about being the unfairness of being labelled “anti-American” for their political positions. I guess that’s only unfair when it’s pointed at liberals, eh?
Regardless, thank you for defining what’s “American” for me. Maybe you and Senator McCarthy would like to provide me with a list of patriotic activities so I can be more careful in future posts?
I would rather suffer a hundred 9/11s than to see the SCOTUS uphold the right of the administration to hold American citizens captured on American soil without due process of law, under any circumstances.
All the terrorists can do is kill us.
Our own government, now…
Man, if I don’t have my freedom, what the hell are we fighting for?
I think this statement provides some insight to the differences between the main views being debated here. While you would be comfortable living in a more authoritarian state in exchange for extra safety, Age Quod Agis, people on the other side of the arugment (including myself) are uncomfortable with this notion. Comments like this, though:
are unnecessary, IMHO. While I am very uncomfortable with the thought of possibly giving up some of my inalienable rights for added security, I think statements like these are strawmen (and certainly don’t help in trying to show people our POV).
I think there is some good debating going on in this thread (well, I think so), even if I’m not an active participant. I just wanted to add a couple of cents to the jar, in any case.
BTW Age, before you go too far patting the US on the back in your compare and contrast of how “we” don’t engage in torture and terror like those bad guys, and how our side and leadership can be trusted with near absolute power, please visit this thread illustrating what happens to good guys with good intentions given too much power and too little oversight.
It’s downright frieghtening how some folks are apparently willing to turn over the fundamental liberties and rights of the United States just for some vague notion that this will allow the government to protect them better. It’s not even a 100% assurance of safety and security, just a vague promise that the government will try to do so.
Where’s that Franklin quote when you really need it?
I wasn’t trying to imply the President actually would throw opposition candidates into jail; however, it’s already been brought up as a hypothetical in this thread.
When asked what would stop the President from arresting opposition candidates if he had this unlimited power, Age replied that the President would lose the election if he did that. That is simply illogical, and that’s what I was trying to point out.