I suspect you’re being condescending; nevertheless, I thank you.
Would you now favor me with the name of the foreign power that is at war with the U.S. government?
What gets me is that the same people who only a mere 8 or so years ago were going around with “I love my country but I fear my government” bumperstickers, now seem to implicitly trust everything the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and Bush administration have to say.
What really makes me howl with laughter until my sides ache, is that same these people apparently think that the secrecy and duplicity in the government has greatly diminished since Bush became president. :rolleyes:
I seem to recall when we began jailing these “enemy combatants” at Gitmo without council, or taking in suspected terrorist who were here on visas, the argument was, “Well, they’re not American citizens, so the Constitution doesn’t apply to them!”
But now we’re taking in citizens…and the Constitution still doesn’t apply.
When WILL the Constitution apply? Or is it just a piece of paper stating laws that happen to be “inconvenient?”
Our rights aren’t only good when they’re convenient.
I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I was trying to show that the phrase is not some meaningless catchphrase that can be fit to any situation. It can easily be understood by reference to the words’ common meaning.
The “foreign power” at issue here is al Queda.
Just ducking in here to say that yes, I was whooshed back around post #3… I blame lack of caffeine!
(slinking out of the thread, and fleeing into the night!)
I’m not that guy. I think the war powers should apply to all Presidents equally. If you have evidence that I’m being hypocritical, please provide it. Otherwise, please save the strawmen.
The Constitution will apply when it actually applies. It will not apply or otherwise change in scope or meaning merely because you don’t like what it actually says.
Fair enough.
I am skeptical about the notion that a state of war can be said to exist between the United States and a stateless organization.
I’ll let it pass, though, if you can direct me to the text of the Congressional declaration of war.
Look dipstick, the issue they are arguing IS whether anyone but the adminstration should have any say.
By Age Quod Agis:
Well, let’s take a peek.
"Article [V.]
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Article [VI.]
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Great amendments; good idea putting them in there. Notice that the Fifth says “no person”; not even limited to citizens. I think the idea was that these are what a civilized society should consider basic human rights.
Boy are we quick to assume meanings these days. I read that as indicating that thewr will be “reasonable, intelligent people” on the other side of the argument, NOT that they will only be on that side.
And FWIW if I can’t meet with my lawyer, talk to her, confer with her, get advice from her, then I don’t think I have “access to legal counsel”.
Not Propaganda. Someone had just been watching Blazing Saddles.
I do believe I have found my new sig.
Well, the Vietnam War never even officially started, let alone ended. Another abuse of executive power. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Also, as far as i know, in no other war has the President of the United States specifically stood up and said that we are involved in a war without end. There’s a difference between “indefinite” and “forever,” and the current war against “terror” falls more into the latter category, if we are to believe the current administration.
Furthermore, as this Cato Institute story makes clear, the applicability of the Quirin case to Jose Padilla is nowhere near as clear as you seem to believe:
You can make the argument that you agree with Quirin, and that you agree with the President’s treatment of Padilla, but, contrary to your and the President’s assertions, the situations are not exactly the same. No matter how much you whine to the contrary, it is possible to agree that the Quirin decision was appropriate while also believing that the current administration is violating Padilla’s constitutional rights.
Again, you’re making my argument for me. When did this war on “terror” begin, let alone end? I must have missed the declaration.
And let’s face it - when the Cato Institute has something negative to say about a conservative administration, you know something fishy is going on (for those who don’t know, the Cato Institute is one of the most conservative thinktanks in the country).
[QUOTE=SimonX]
one day that a politicain who puts his own interests and the interests of those who ply him with funds, monies and remunerations above the common good of Americans, could find his way into a position of public trust.**[/FONT]
…Back where I come from we call this “January 2000”
I was just reading a newspaper article about the case, and got mad all over again. Let’s just review the sequence of events:
- Government agents arrest a man on suspicion of involvement with terrorism. He’s not charged, but is locked up without access to outside news, with no contact with family or friends, and without any legal representation.
The government presents a circular argument to justify this: they declare the man an “Enemy Combatant”, and claim that this means they don’t have to extend him due process. What evidence makes him an “Enemy Combatant”? They don’t have to present the evidence, because the man isn’t entitled to due process – because he’s an “Enemy Combatant”.
-
After months, the government allows counsel to be appointed for the man, who still has not been charged. Unfortunately, the man doesn’t know he has counsel, because he’s still being held incommunicado.
-
After the man has been locked up, without charges, without contact with a lawyer, for almost two years, the government releases what they claim is the man’s confession. Nope, they’re still not planning to charge him with anything.
Regardless of convoluted legal arguments, does this not sound typical of a dictatorship? I’m starting to think John Ashcroft really is at heart a Fascist.
Grrr, I heard that deputy A.G.'s news conference on the radio this morning and it made my blood boil. “Had we tried to make a case against Jose Padilla through our criminal justice system … he would very likely have followed his lawyer’s advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right.” It’s hard to believe they could find a lawyer willing to spout these lines.
I wish the SCOTUS would hurry up and rule on the Padilla case.
Actually, i’m not sure that’s really a fair characterization of Cato.
They profess libertarian principles, which means that they tend to be what leftists would call economically conservative (i.e., advocate low taxes, minimal government intervention in the economy, etc.). On social and cultural issues, they also adopt a libertarian standpoint, which often puts them strongly at odds with more traditional conservatives, and especially with the Christian fundamentalist right wing. Anyone reading Cato’s website (or other libertarian organs) over the past year or so, and who focused on the issue of security and war, could easily mistake the libertarians for leftists.
The main problem i have with Cato is that, like many other libertarian organizations, they have always seemed (to me at least) to privilege their economic over their social and cultural libertarianism. When libertarians do this, they tend to favor Republicans over Democrats, conservatives over liberals. But the Bush administration, with its assault on social and cultural liberties, and its massive spending programs (mainly on war), has actually driven quite a few libertarians towards the Democratic/liberal side of America’s two-party system. Our own libertarian/liberal is just one example or a libertarian who says he’s going to vote Democrat for the first time in the coming election.
And one of the big differences is that in the Quirin case charges and a trial were commencesd within weeks, not years. There’s still yet to be charges filed against Padilla.
The current lack of sufficient cupidity amongst the relvant law enforcement officials is heartening. However, there may well come a day when this dearth of cupidity is replaced bya plethora.
The rule of law should be forward looking. It should also take into account humans inherent corruptability.
If given this sort of power, it is only a matter of time until it is abused. It may be months, it may be decades, but eventually someone with less than noble intentions will come to power. When that happens, what reciourse will Americans have?
Note also that Padilla has not been treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.
Second, we are not at war.
The ‘executive’ doesn’t shoot people. The Armed Forces do. The Armed Forces did not arrest Mr. Padilla. Mr. Padilla was not in a war zone.
In accordance wit Geneva Conventions. Mr. Padilla’s captivity has not been in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
This whole ‘war argument’ is inapplicable.
Ex Parte Milligan is more relevant than Quirin.