“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary saftey, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
–Ben Franklin
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
-Herman Goering
“What we are fighting for is the very security of our existence.” -Adolf Hitler
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
– James Madison
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
-Henry Kissinger
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-James Madison
Wow. Some great sig lines in there.
Not to mention Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.”
And addressing the OP, what’s with you libertarians who vote Republican? Sure, I have nothing against moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee, one of my RI senators. But with regards to the Bush wing of the GOP, what gives? Is economic conservatism really so important to you that it trumps basic respect for the Bill of Rights? Hell, the Republicans aren’t even economically conservative anymore anyway, despite their mastery of libertarian rhetoric. To indulge in a bit of reckless hyperbole, where would you rather live: western Europe or Iran?
How is the arrest of an American citizen on American soil a matter of “the foreign policy arena” and not a domestic issue?
Ex parte Quirin deals with members of foreign army on American soil as opposed to an American citizen. This can be a signifigant difference in re many legal maters.
Depending upon the specifics of your sentiment, it could easily be construed as un-American.
The American Ideal is that Liberty is worth more than Life. That’s why we’ve repeatedly traded one for the other throughout the years.
Life’s good, but Liberty’s doubleplusgood
Mr2001 and vibrotronica, your cites do not support your assertion that the ACLU was barred from criticizing the Patriot Act. They say that the ACLU was barred from disclosing certain facts relating to a lawsuit that they filed seeking to disclose information relating to an ongoing criminal investigation. Heck, the ACLU criticized the Patriot Act in the article you linked. How in your mind does that twist into an inability to criticize the Patriot Act?
And “sneak and peek” warrants existed long before the Patriot Act, and will exist long after the Patriot Act is gone. So just getting rid of the Patriot Act won’t get rid of the secrecy that usually surrounds ongoing criminal and terrorist investigations.
I understand and respect that. And as I said before, it makes me uncomfortable, too. But I’m going to resist the kneejerk reaction against any potential expansion of the state’s police powers. Sometimes, it’s a good idea to make the government better able to fight crime. And as I have said numerous times already, it’s far from clear that the Bush Admin has actually infringed on anyone’s rights, inalienable or otherwise.
When the person arrested is working for a foreign government, or otherwise dealing with issues that have national security implications. The goal of terrorists is frequently to overthrow, harm, or otherwise affect national government. Thus, even if an American citizen is working to overthrow the federal government on behalf of a foreign power, it’s a matter in the foreign policy arena.
I’d suggest you read the decision before telling me that I don’t understand it. One of the defendants in Quirin was reportedly an American citizen. From the decision:
That American citizen was treated the same as the wholly foreign individuals.
And further, you’ll have to explain to me how terrorists are different than “members of a foreign army” in any practical sense. Again, from the decision:
Again, I call BS. You don’t get to make sarcastic quips in other threads about how stupid it is to call your opposition to the invasion of Iraq “un-American” and then turn around and use that same stupid rhetoric on me. You don’t get to define what is and is not American for me any more than I get to define it for you. It’s remarkably hypocritical of you to make such an argument, especially when I’ve already pointed it out.
And it’s downright frightening how quickly some people will resort to strawmen, especially when faced with some vague rhetorical notion that their rights have been infringed upon because they were codified in a new way.
First of all, that’s not what I said. I said that there were a number of reasons, including the fact that the President would lose the next election. You’ve chosen to focus on only one of the reasons I’ve mentioned. I wonder why?
Second of all, I’ve addressed this slippery slope argument a number of times. Your argument does not get better with repetition.
Third, it’s not illogical unless you somehow assume that locking an opposition party candidate in jail makes the President immune to criticism, and means that the electorate would lose the ability to vote for the person in jail, or for anyone else. That’s just not true. Lyndon Larouche has run Presidential campaigns from jail and garnered a number of votes. Why is your hypothetical any different?
And please, people, spare me the quotes on patriotism. I’m aware of the quotes. But I’m not going to roll over on my back and throw my legs in the air just because you’ve managed to find something that Ben Franklin said hundreds of years ago about something else, but that sounds similar to what your trying to say now.
LilShieste, I didn’t mean to imply that your reaction to the “enemy combatant” label is merely a kneejerk reaction. I just meant that for many people, anytime they hear that the state is going to get better at enforcing our laws, they scream bloody murder about infringing on our rights. I was just trying to say that it’s better to think the issue through on a case-by-case basis.
Sorry if my clumsy phrasing seemed insulting to you. I’ll try to be more careful in the future.
How exactly has it been established that Mr. Padilla is in fact guilty of being “a terrorist” or “working for a foreign government, or otherwise dealing with issues that have national security implications?”
That’s pert near the crux of the biscuit.
An additional aside.
Please note that formal charges were levied against these people. Also note the length of time it took for charges to filed and a trial to be held:
"The four were there landed from the submarine in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942…" and “On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore…”
“On July 3, 1942, the Judge Advocate General’s Department of the Army prepared and lodged with the Commission the following charges…”
"The Commission met on July 8, 1942, and proceeded with the trial…"
At most, we’re talking about a few weeks between the commision of the offenses and charges and trial.
Compare and contrast with Mr. Padilla’s case where charges have yet to be filed despite a somewhat lengthier stay in custody.
IIRC, the American citizen among them got them all busted by trying to alert the authorities. That didn’t save him any grief though.
There actually are somethings that are unAmerican. Surrendering essential liberties, (which you didn’t expressly specify), for some security is, in fact unAmerican. Furthermore, I expressly stated, “Depending upon the specifics of your sentiment.” Liberty is worth the risk of Life. So take your BS do with it whatever you will.
Who said anything about “an inability to criticize the Patriot Act?” The claim that made you scoff was this one:
That is what the cite supports. The ACLU’s challenge was kept secret because it revolves around a “national security letter”, and the Patriot Act makes it illegal to reveal that you’ve received such a letter.
How many others have received those letters? How many of them have challenged the letters in court? We can’t know.
Fair enough, Mr2001. After looking back at vibrotronica and your posts earlier, I see that I misunderstood what vibrotronica was saying. I thought he/she was using “challenge to the Patriot Act” in the simple sense of criticizing it. I was apparently wrong.
I’d take issue with your definition of what constitutes a “gag order.” And the way that we can know about such challenges is that they are not totally “gagged.” The ACLU’s challenge was just “heavily edited.” And given the fact that the news said “edited,” I doubt it was illegible. MSNBC certainly had no problems discerning the substance of the ACLU’s complaint. Why wouldn’t that be true for other organizations?
Regardless, I still have a hard time getting worked up about the fact that the Patriot Act prevents the disclosure of details of an ongoing investigation.
Well, that wasn’t your question. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to not have specified the manner in which that determination is made.
But now that you have, I’m not sure exactly how that determination was made. But more relevant to the instant discussion, I’m not convinced that even the most trivial method (a coinflip?) is unconstitutional. It’s not about right or wrong, or what you and I like; it’s about what the constitution says and means.
What you seem to be asking for is a trial to be carried out shortly after potential “enemy combatants” are detained so that there can be an official, independent status determination. Considering that Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan by coalition forces and handed over the Americans, how would you suggest they do that? Should the US fly the coalition forces in on a 747 so they can testify with regard to the actions they saw Hamdi take? Should they have called troops away from the battlefield so that they could fly Hamdi back to the States, hold a full-scale trial, complete with military witnesses, and then determine whether Hamdi should be held for further interrogation?
In the case of Padilla, should the US reveal undercover agents on location, doubtless risking their lives, so that the US can keep Padilla in jail? Should the US just reveal the information Padilla and others disclosed, thus demonstrating Padilla’s status and intentions, but also likely making all the information obtained totally useless? And wouldn’t any witness for the prosecution become a target for terrorists? Wouldn’t any courthouse become a target for bombing?
What would you suggest?
Fair enough. But as yet another aside, the “unlawful belligerants” from Quirin were tried by military courts. If they had the rights of a civilian in America, then that would have been a deprivation of their constitutional rights no less severe than completely depriving them of their constitutional right to trial. In fact, that was the main issue argued before the Supreme Court.
I understand you think that. But I don’t necessarily agree with you (and what could be more un-American than stifling dissent?).
Regardless, I’ll be sure you point out your position here the next time someone gets shouted down for saying that criticizing the attack on Iraq is un-American. “Carry on,” I’ll say. “SimonX and JRDelirious have your back!”
The latter (witness intimidation and court-attack) is a concern with any prosecution for terrorism as a common crime – and there are such prosecutions carried out in the US and elsewhere (e.g. the 1993 WTC bombing) – but heck, it’s a concern with just plain old Mobster or Drug-kingpin trials; and it doesn’t make us stop. As to the former (compromising of sources and information), would all that BE necessarily so? Oh, surely, the lawyers and some of our more piranhoid media figures would probably want to literally transform the case into a trial of [the War on Terror/ the Patriot Act/ George W / AOTA ] rather than one suspected collaborator, including tearing down the whole intelligence system. But we have had trials for Spies/ Terrorists/ Traitors/ Drug Lords/ Mafia Dons before w/o it having had to result in the dismantling of our entire undercover operations systems. So it must be possible.
Absolutely. If what’s going on is indeed an unfounded shoutdown, rather than a refutation or a statement of opposition. OTOH, don’t count on me to endorse any “nyaah, nyaah, nyaah”-ing on either side’s part.
While it may seem that way, it’s not the only option. It’s not as if there aren’t already established means for handling high security cases. There are numerous federal judges with security clearances. When the country’s not under martial law, there should be at least charges filed against someone who is detained.
One of the biggest differences betwen the Quirin case and Padilla’s case is that the “petitioners” were actually charged with something, (as well as tried).
Mr. Padilla has yet to be even charged. What’s happened is a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for MR. Padilla.
Quirin merely establishes that in certain circumstances, American citizens may be tried under military tribunals rather than in civilian courts. It does not justify indefinite detention of American citizens w/o charges or a trial.
It’s different to try someone by military tribunal than to not to try or even charge them at all. Bringing up Quirin’s like comparing cats and apples.
From ex parte Merryman re the writ of habeas corpus:
“Under the constitution of the United States, congress is the only power which can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ. [Cited in Ex parte Field, Case No. 4,761; McCall v. McDowell, Id. 8,673.]”
…the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 81], which renders effectual for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That act gives to the courts of the United States, as well as to each justice of the supreme court, and to every district judge, power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.
When the conspiracy of which Aaron Burr was the head, became so formidable, and was so extensively ramified, as to justify, in Mr. Jefferson’s opinion, the suspension of the writ, he claimed, on his part, no power to suspend it, but communicated his opinion to congress, with all the proofs in his possession, in order that congress might exercise its discretion upon the subject, and determine whether the public safety required it. And in the debate which took place upon the subject, no one suggested that Mr. Jefferson might exercise the power himself, if, in his opinion, the public safety demanded it.
Choice comments from ex parte Milligan:
No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is, alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people.
This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible; and yet, the peril to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested in answer to a writ of habeas corpus.
But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
It will be borne in mind that this is not a question of the power to proclaim martial law, when war exists in a community and the courts and civil authorities are overthrown.
The necessities of the service, during the late Rebellion, required that the loyal states should be placed within the limits of certain military districts and commanders appointed in them; and, it is urged, that this, in a military sense, constituted them the theatre of military operations; and, as in this case, Indiana had been and was again threatened with invasion by the enemy, the occasion was furnished to establish martial law.
It follows, from what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.
As far as I can tell, being denied the writ of habeas corpus, not being charged and not having a trial is, in fact, more severe than being tried by a military tribunal.
There’s no stifling of dissent on my part.
But of course, you’re free to misinterpret and misrepresent my sentiments as you please. I cannot stop you.
Relax. I was being facetious. I realize neither you nor JRDelirious are stifling dissent.
But you are characterizing opposing viewpoints as un-American, and I have a problem with that. It’s not up to you to define what’s American for me. And merely labelling my opinions “un-American” isn’t exactly attacking it on its foundation.
If you think that a military trial would be fine, then I think it’s worth noting that one of the problems with military trials is that they don’t guarantee the defendant the same rights as in a civilian trial. For example, a Defendant can’t plead the 5th before a military tribunal. So, once again, if an “enemy combatant” is denied his civil rights by being locked up indefinitely without a trial, then it’s no less a violation of his constitutional rights to lock him up indefinitely after trying him before a military commission. It may assuage our consciences a bit, but it’s still not kosher with the Constitution.