Interesting - thanks for the info. So is the Hudson Institute now the leading conservative TT?
Out of curiosity, are you saying that the USG had the right to execute Padilla when he arrived @ O’Hare?
If not, how does your argument in this situation work?
I dug up some of my old posts in this thread
and some quqotes from the Quirin case:
and
Even if you accept Quirin is applicable, it does not make this administration’s actions any less unconstitutional and reprehensible.
I think the Heritage Foundation is probably the benchmark in terms of influence and financial backing. It is certainly quoted often in the media, and has considerable clout in Washington. The fact that it’s heavily supported by Richard Mellon Scaife should give you an idea of its politics.
The Brookings Institution is arguably even more influential than Heritage, but in the current political climate i think that Brookings is more fairly described as centerist, even thought they are more conservative than i would like.
Finally, i shouldn’t downplay too much the conservatism of the Cato Institute. Even though i stressed before that they are mainly “conservative” when it comes to economics, the consequence of such conservative economic policies is often the gutting or abolition of social programs that provide a measure of assistance to the less fortunate members of society. Almost all economic policies have social and cultural ramifications. The main problem for Cato and the other libertarian-type groups is that their long-time favorites, the Republicans, have now become their worst nightmare.
got any examples of US civilian court cases where folks were detained for 2 years w/o charges or access to lawyers, the outside world etc?
Quirin applies in that it has an American who was not a member of the US military tried in the military justrice system.
But, in contrast, the American was tried.
Before that he was charged.
The whole affair from arrest to sentence happened in months.
There was no issue about the writ of habeas corpus.
Let me join in here. First of all, I’m on the fence on this. On the one hand, my civil libertarian impulses recoils at the government being able to do this. On the other hand…
It seems to me that the real problem here is that the law has not caught up with the times. Before the age of terrorism, we basically had sets of laws that applied to individuals, and codified agreeements between nations such as the Geneva Conventions. The rules of war give countries wide lattitude in attacking targets, executing certain prisoners, rules of evidence, and the like. Because it is recognized that the battlefield is not an antiseptic environment where rules of evidence can apply, and soldiers are not policemen who can take the time to read Miranda rights to suspects. So war is violent and somewhat indiscriminate.
When soldiers of other nations are captured, they are treated as prisoners of war, because it is recognized that they are fighting on behalf of another power. When that power is defeated, the soldiers can be released because they are no longer a threat.
On the other side of the coin, we can afford to be very strict about violating the rights of citizens, partly because they generally pose no threat to the state itself or to large numbers of people. We can afford to let many of the guilty go free to protect the innocent, because the consequences of this are not particularly severe at a national level.
But terrorism is a whole 'nuther problem. First, suspected terrorists are not acting on behalf of a nation state. There is no one to demand surrender from, or to offer surrender. And if you capture them on a battlefield, it is extremely difficult to convict them in a court of law because there are no chains of evidence that can be tightly controlled, no impartial eyewitnesses, etc.
So what do you do with them? Are they prisoners of war? If so, at what point can you release them? There will be no formal surrender. They aren’t in uniform, so can you execute them as spies? Probably not, because there is no nation they are spying for. And yet, you can’t just release them, because you know they’re just going to turn around and kill more Americans.
And what do you do with American citizens that turn out to be terrorists? Again, are you going to drag each one through the legal system? What if the evidence against them is classified? Do you compromise national security?
I don’t pretend to have the answers, but this issue is not anywhere near as black and white as either side tends to portray it.
As for checks and balances, and what’s to stop the government from doing this to everyone… Are you forgetting that we live in Democracies? It seems to me there is already a ‘check’ in play here - Bush may lose the next election in part because of this. And if they started arresting people willy-nilly, you can bet that even ardent supporters would turn against them. As long as there are elections, there are safeguards against civil liberties being completely eroded.
So again, we drop the rules of law and our rights when they become inconvient?
Because that’s what this all boils down to.
:rolleyes:
When someone corrupt enters into this power, I doubt if they would arrest people ‘willy nilly.’ It seems that the arrests would be very specifically targetted.
Y’know, some people would say "they"ve ALREADY started arresting people willy-nilly (=with no, or no proved/public evidence) and NOW is the time to turn against “them”. I’m don’t know if I agree, but maybe.
For that matter, yes, there are elections. But a government with the power to arrest anyone with no evidence might be able to influence them…
Who would you count here? Padilla, and who else?
How? Arrest enough people to put a chilling effect on an election? You really think that’s a plausible scenario?
Don’t get me wrong - I’m usually on the other side of this debate, arguing that government power will grow if not checked, and I’m pretty hard-core about it. I’m a pretty consistent civil libertarian. I’m just pointing out that the government DOES have a legitimate argument here - one worth seriously debating. We are facing a situation where none of our current laws apply very well, because they didn’t anticipate this type of war.
I don’t know who else. That’s why I didn’t say that they were, just that some people would say they were. Though if you agree Padilla is arrested ‘willy-nilly’, and the court upholds the government’s right to do it.
I wasn’t imagining the government arresting all people who vote for the opposite party. But harassing vocal supporters, or the nephew of the guy who owns the company that make voting machines, or “disappearing” a security guard who caught some secret service men bugging the opposition’s election headquaters could all seem very tempting to an unscrupulous president. I don’t think GWB is that man, but if the power’s there someone’s going to be.
I also see where you’re coming from about the new gray area. Think of WWII - Britain has a combined government during the war, which was basically, but which stepped down afterwards. AH got emergency powers, and that was the end of democracy. You need something to combat the terrorism? Maybe. But it needs more checks?
Could be. I’m just saying it’s a debate worth having, without people one one side shouting the other side down as a bunch of nazis or a bunch of peaceniks who don’t care about security. We need to figure out what the right tradeoffs are, or what the costs are of taking a strictly civil libertarian stance. It’s an important issue, with dire consequences on both sides if we don’t get it right.
You’re kidding, right?
Arrested in 9/11 investigations: 1,200
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa06022003.html
Arrested absconders from Muslim countries
who were targeted to be kept in detention
instead of deportation: 1,100
Arrested based on the new entry system: 1,400
Attorney General Prepared Remarks On The National Security, Entry-Exit Registration System, June 6, 2002 http://www.usdoj.gov:80/ag/speeches/2002/060502agpreparedremarks.htm
Detained during Special Registration: 2,783
AP June 16, 2003
http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleF0B6E08BA3844FA49C67596F11BA1CA0.asp
And this is just what we know of, culled from various official sources…
On November 8, 2001, facing criticism that it had arrested so many people but had charged none with any terrorist-related crimes, the Justice Department simply announced that it will not issue a tally of its detentions.
U.S. to Stop Issuing Detention Tallies
Washington Post, November 9, 2001
On April 22, 2002, Ashcroft issued an interim regulation forbidding any state or county jail from releasing information about INS detainees housed in their facilities.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_otherresources_execbranchactions.asp
I wouldn’t say “willy-nilly” though. IMO, SimonX is correct to say “targetted”.
annaplurabelle: When I said, “Padilla, and who else?” I didn’t mean to imply that there were no others. I literally was asking who all the people were. Thank you for providing some links. Unfortunately, it’s 2AM and I’ve got to work in the morning, so I’ll look at it tomorrow.
He actually said “Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither Liberty or Security”
(or something very close…)
I think you should have stopped while you were ahead. Cato (and libertarians generally) equally oppose social programs that benefit the rich, like corporate welfare, foreign aid, pork barrel spending, and so forth. They also oppose special legislative favor for the wealthy, as well as such power-grab tools as eminent domain and asset forfeiture.
Well perhaps you should educate instead of sighing and making unexplained wistful comments.
The flip side is this: the rule of law and our rights might be getting us killed.
I say “might” because I really would like to believe that a slight rights rollback will ultimately be unnecessary.
Here’s how I look at it – taking our respective viewpoints together, there are two enemies looming on the horizon: terrorists, both foreign and domestic; and our government.
We probably differ on which one is the greater threat. Personally, I think the fundamental gist of your stance is correct – the government absolutely must be held in some kind of check.
What I don’t know is how you rate the relative dangers of terrorism versus dangers of the government. Against which should the greater counters be adminstered? That is where our opinions likely differ most.
I don’t worry so much about repeat 9-11s as isolated incidents. What I worry about is a nation in which terrorism becomes a commonplace and trusted method of encouraging societal change. I worry that extremists of all stripes will begin to think that terrorism works – that indeed, crime pays.
Well said. I can’t help but be convinced that trade-offs of some kind will have to be made. I do believe that trade-offs can be relatively mild, in that nothing would change for all but a few dozen people nationwide. I’m not convinced that a sled ride down a slippery slope is the only consequence of a slight rights-for-security trade.
What are the odds of being killed or injured do to terrorism?
1:?
How does this rank against say homicide or auto accidents?