McCarthyism & McRumsfeldism

[sqweels]

if there was a terrorist group that was attacking Canada from inside the US and the US gov’t wasn’t doing anything about it, I think Canada would be justified to come in and grab them.

I would like to see a poll as to how many Americans agree with that.

[rjung]

As long as we’re talking about McCarthy-type tactics, how about this story about two high school students who were grilled by the Secret Service just because they made disparaging remarks about George W. Bush?

Even worse, they say, is the fact that the students were grilled by federal agents without legal counsel or their parents present, just the principal.

“When one of the students asked, ‘do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?’ they were told, ‘we own you, you don’t have any legal rights,’” Felson says.

[Mojo]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**As long as we’re talking about McCarthy-type tactics, how about this story about two high school students who were grilled by the Secret Service just because they made disparaging remarks about George W. Bush? **

It was more than just “disparaging”- note that the article doesn’t repeat what the students said- a more detailed, less inflammatory source is the Oakland Tribune’s version.

The way Whitney (the teacher) remembers it, John "said something like, ‘We need a sniper to take care of Bush,’ and Billy said, ‘Yeah, I’d do it.’

The teacher heard two students make what she thought was a threat against the president. She contacted the Secret Service who are required to follow up on it.

sqweels, I’m not claiming that a majority of Americans feel that way, that’s just my opinion.

[wring]

well, Mojo if you want to talk about the distinction between ‘accused’ and ‘charged’, as well as ‘citizen/non citizen’ , please keep in mind that in our system of jurisprudence:

1. While it does indeed take a mere governmental accusation of a crime to allow authorities to arrest you, there is a [typically short) finite amount of time wherein they must serve a charge, sustainable by a court (at least at a preliminary exam level) or release them. this has not been done for Piddilla, or the detainees, nor for all of those snatched up immediately post 9/11 (where Ashcroft refused to even list how many there were).

2. At least at a criminal court level, the constitutional provisions generall apply to citizens as well as non citizens - IME, they’re given the same rights to attorneys, the same level of proof necessary, the same specific rules of evidence etc. It could be different for deportation issues, but even then, AFAIK, folks aren’t generally held w/o charge for months and months and not allowed to communicate w/their attorneys etc.

3. Since the US does in fact criticize many other nations (rightfully so) for their human rights violations, specifically talking about the lack of due process, it should be disconcerning to us that we apparently have no problem circumventing due process ourselves.

but it does indeed come down to the bottom line - you apparently trust those in governmental service to make ‘good use’ of these powers, and do not fear what’ll happen if the provision for division of powers afforded in the Constitution is allowed to be ignored (such as the executive branch refusing to have judicial review of their actions in these matters).

Since ‘those in governmental services’ = fallible humans, I’d rather not allow my rights to erode, thanks all the same.

[Mojo]

Actually I agree with you. I have a mild dislike of Bush and would be happy if Ashcroft was replaced tomorrow. And I have a very healthy fear of what would happen if Ashcroft had unfettered powers. The problem is that I don’t have any reasonable alternatives for the guys currently in Gitmo. We can’t charge them with crimes in the US. They won’t abide by Geneva Convention rules for POWs- if we released them tomorrow, I’d be willing to bet that the first thing a lot of them would do is hook up with Al Qaeida again. I’m upset with the hypothetical extremes that they’re situation could be taken to, but I’m not really bothered with the reality of the situation. We currently don’t have any mechanism to deal with people in an ad hoc army fighting an undeclared war and not playing by “the rules”- and I don’t want to see more people die because of that.

I was pissed that people were comparing the current situation to McCarthyism, where innocent people’s lives were ruined because someone was trying to further their career. I don’t think it’s a valid comparison. Look at Rjung’s article- it looks like the Secret Service was harassing two innocent kids and I’ve seen it used as an example of Ashcroft’s “Amerika”. But the reality is that an individual who deals with these kids on a day to day basis was so bothered by the comments that he contacted the Secret Service, who in turn interviewed the kids. No detentions, no beatings, no disappearances. People screaming “police state! Police state!” now are essentially crying wolf, and it will make it that much more difficult for legitimate complaints to be taken seriously when civil liberties truly go down the shitter.

[Mojo]

Re-reading my post it sounds a bit snarky- I wasn’t singling you out for ridicule, Rjung, I was pissed off when I first read the article you posted thinking that the gov’t was harassing schoolkids. It was after seeing the second article that I realized that the orig. article was a slanted piece that was IMHO intentionally missing important info. And I swear I know the difference between “they’re” and “their”, honest.

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Frostillicus *
**The Soviets may have never crashed planes into tall buildings, but they sure had the means to deliver a much deadlier blow to US security than today’s terrorists can. **

Yes, but their weapons had a return address. Terrorist weapons don’t. That’s why MAD worked.

Bin Ladden wasn’t interested in killing people. He wanted to destroy the country. He didn’t jump up and say “I did it and these are the reasons why:”. His targets were the highest political offices, the military nerve center, and the single largest economic venue he could hit.