Civil Liberties

How have the threat of terrorist attacks curtailed our freedoms? Is safety ever worth the loss of freedom?

1. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:18:03 PM

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

• Did our relatively open society make it easier for terrorists to attack?
  
• Can we stop future terrorist attacks without restricting civil liberties
  
• If we must restrictions civil liberties, should it be across the board, or can we differentiate between citizens and non-citizens?
  
• Is ethnic profiling acceptable?
  
• Are our law enforcement tools inadequate in this electronic/online age?
  

2. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:21:15 PM

We've already had some discussion of civil liberties in the Attack thread. I created a "conversation"—a thread containing the 29 posts in the Attack thread mentioning "civil liberties".

Click here: Civil liberty posts in the attack thread

to see what people have said so far.
The first link on the butterscotch bar is a link to this conversation.

3. CalGal - 10/20/2001 3:25:53 PM

Did our relatively open society make it easier for terrorists to attack?

Our government's disastrous dismissal of its own procedures and requirements, as well as the states' deliberate and overt non-compliance with them, made it easier. It's impossible to say whether our open society properly managed would have enabled the attack, since we've never really followed our own laws.

Can we stop future terrorist attacks without restricting civil liberties

Stop future non-citizen terrorist attacks? I believe we can radically reduce the risk. Of citizen terrorism? Much tougher.

If we must restrictions civil liberties, should it be across the board, or can we differentiate between citizens and non-citizens?


Non-citizens have no right to most civil liberties. Oddly enough, the one civil liberty Ashcroft is shitting all over is the one that I would most preserve--if they come into the bounds of our criminal justice system, they should have full protection. The caveat is that we can boot them out without cause. What we can't do (in the perfect world I'd rule) is imprison them under terms that wouldn't be allowed for our own citizens.

Is ethnic profiling acceptable?

I don't know about acceptable; it's just not particularly effective. Do it long enough and they'll just work around it. They aren't black, it's much easier for them to "pass".

Are our law enforcement tools inadequate in this electronic/online age?

No, not really.

There, I've answered them all. You can end the thread now.

4. CalGal - 10/20/2001 3:27:45 PM

Dusty, that link hangs.

5. Toenails - 10/20/2001 3:33:45 PM

I've been an ACLU-er for decades.

But I'm parting company with Mother on a major issue--identity cards. I think our society is sufficiently overpopulated, overburdened and diverse to justify the mandatory use of high-tech ID cards for everyone -- citizen and alien alike -- who is legally here.

No ID card and no valid excuse for its absence, and you're outahere.

I'm ready to have electronic accountability for the whole bloody lot of us. And I'm ready for the Government to employ those devices to find, not only terrorists, but tax cheats, deadbeat dads, and any other form of fugitive from justice you can think up.

6. dusty - 10/20/2001 3:58:28 PM

Dusty, that link hangs.
Which one?
I just checked all three links, all worked. The first one take a few seconds to load; I'm guessing because it has to identify 29 entries in another thread, but it loads for me fine.

7. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 3:59:18 PM

* Did our relatively open society make it easier for terrorists to attack?

Of course not. Closing society will increase the number of terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are determined entirely by who you piss off and how much you piss them off by. There are potentially a hundred McVeighs or Unibombers out there for every Bin Laden agent.

* Can we stop future terrorist attacks without restricting civil liberties.

Since restricting civil liberties won't provide any but results inverse to what we want to achieve, this is a moot question.

* If we must restrictions civil liberties, should it be across the board, or can we differentiate between citizens and non-citizens?

What Cal-Gal said.

* Is ethnic profiling acceptable?

Perhaps in China or Iraq or Afghanistan.... Not here. Perhaps it's advocates have never heard of the 14th amendment. But since it isn't even useful, the question is moot.

* Are our law enforcement tools inadequate in this electronic/online age?

Why is it, that when through gross incompetence, dereliction to duty and complacency we fail to use the tools we have, the call always goes out to create new tools which will be promptly ignored and/or abused?

8. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 3:59:39 PM

Not much discussion left, is there? I have yet to hear of one single proposed infringment of civil liberties that would have prevented or stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Reinforced cockpit doors, video monitoring of the cabin, the ability of ground control to take over flight of an aircraft in trouble, adequate communication between flight controlers and NORAD, taser armed pilots, sky marshalls and competent baggage screeners do not constitute violations of anyone's civil liberties, yet would all have been effective in stopping the attacks. What I see in addition to effectiveness based approaches is a bunch of ideologically driven agendas being proposed as anti-terrorism measures simply because the climate might allow for any old rubbish to be enacted in the name of security. Everything from national IDs to gun control to curtailment of the rights of defendents to ethnic profiling and a host of other crap is being pursued without any real concept of effectiveness, let alone constitutional permisability.

We must be careful else we will have met the enemy and he will have become us.

9. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:00:09 PM

Dusty, that link hangs.
Which one?
I just checked all three links, all worked. The first one take a few seconds to load; I'm guessing because it has to identify 29 entries in another thread, but it loads for me fine.

10. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:00:54 PM

May I suggest we include the ACLU in your suggested links for study?

11. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:02:19 PM

"No ID card and no valid excuse for its absence, and you're outahere."

A sure recipie for our own religious civil war. Think before you propose.

12. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:05:17 PM

AuNaturel
Not much discussion left, is there?
Actually, we are just getting warmed up.

Congress is working on a bill referred to as an anti-terrorism bill; early drafts contained provisions that enraged civil libertarians. While some of those provisions have been modified, the current proposal still upsets many people. See the EFF link for some examples; I will provide more explicit links shortly.

13. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:08:08 PM

In the wake of the tragic events in the United States, there are reports that many countries are now considering adopting national id cards. These include the United States, United Kingdom, the Philippines, and the Netherlands.

14. dusty - 10/20/2001 4:10:39 PM

In the US, Larry Ellison is one of the more vocal proponents of a national ID card system, although one should consider his possible vested interest:

CEO Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create a national identification card system -- and offering to donate the software to make it possible.

15. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:17:41 PM

Not much discussion left, is there?

Meant rhetorically, similar to Cal's determination that the discussion need go no further after she'd answered your qusetions. Should've put a smiley after it.

16. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 4:36:36 PM

Per EFF, Singapore introduced a state-of-the-art ID card system recently. Within a month and a half a conterfeiting industry had spung up.

EFF is not on record as opposing National ID in principle but argues our large, diverse and very dynamic population makes it a practical impossibility to implement. I oppose any such ID in principle. I counter that:

It will create another underground economy that will mutually reinforce the already massive undergound economies in illegal immigrants, drugs, sex work, tax avoidance and so on.

The fundamentalist Christian communities will not tolerate it to the point of massive civil disobediance. They take this "Number of the Beast" thing quite literally and very seriously. The fringe will take this as a call to war against the federal agents of Satan. Oklahoma City may well be seen many times over. Sound familiar?

There is no possible construction of the Constitution that would allow The Federal government to implement such a card. Any such attempt would bring philosphical libertarians and many nonreligious conservatives and well as liberal civil libertarians into the civilly disobediant camps. Ain't enough jails to hold all of us.

17. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 4:55:14 PM

I agree with Au

Ethnic profiling to prevent terrorism is unacceptable.

As long as my invocation of this pristine sentiment does not deter professionals from actually training extra security and attention upon those who fit the profile (including their ethnicity), I'm certainly glad to mouth it. And no pretty words are going to make retards out of those charged to secure various facilities (i.e., a man of Middle-Eastern ethnicity and Jerry Seinfeld show up at the airport, and with limited resources, both are investigated with equal vigor).

18. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:20:14 PM

It may seem obvious to you, but if you actually think about it as a solution, it might occur to you--yes, even you--that it wouldn't be effective.

But of course, you can rebut this with the numbers of Arab terrorists we've captured since 9/11 by increased scrutiny.

19. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:21:32 PM

And if you notice, even Au, who made the civil liberties appeal (which I did not), stressed the ineffectiveness of it. So in your response try, if you can, to address that aspect rather than mock the easy part that no one is relying on--or perhaps you didn't understand that.

20. dusty - 10/20/2001 5:46:47 PM

From—Will the War Kill the Bill of Rights?

But there are also provisions that seriously infringe privacy, while offering little in the way of counter-terrorism. For example, the bill allows the government, without a warrant, to monitor every e-mail that a person sends and receives. Content access would, however, require a search warrant - although in practice the government would be on the honor system not to read content. Any state, local, or federal law enforcement officer could use the e-mail surveillance. And there is no requirement that this surveillance be connected to a terrorism investigation...

The House bill also allows surveillance of a person's Internet surfing. The government can capture the web address of every page that a person views-without a search warrant. This allows any law officer to find out intimate details about a person's politics, hobbies, and even sexual orientation. There is no requirement that this surveillance be related to counter-terrorism.

21. CalGal - 10/20/2001 5:50:33 PM

I am extremely bothered by email surveillance. I am also bothered by the ability to monitor every URL clicked. That is not the same as LUDs.

22. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 5:54:23 PM

Cal

I was not addressing you (hence, the "I agree with Au" in the beginning of my post), so nothing in my post was designed to address whatever "appeal" you made (I had not read your posts in this infant thread, being stirred by the words of Au). I was addressing Au's "civil liberties appeal". To the extent I have led you to believe otherwise, you have my second apology of the week. To the extent this problem appears to be recurrent, I will henceforth start my posts with "Cal" to indicate that I am addressing your prior words. To the extent you are hostile and personal, thereby bruising my frail ego, I will address you infrequently.

23. CalGal - 10/20/2001 6:12:19 PM

Francis,

I don't require an apology, you didn't hurt my feelings. To the extent that I have bruised your frail ego, please believe that I am sorry.

I believe it is incumbent upon you to accept responses from others, even if you don't directly address them. Yesterday, you said "everybody is wailing about Do more, do more!" (inexact quote) and when I took issue with that, given that all of us at the time were discussing various issues, you hastened to say that you were only referring to Janjon and thoughtful. I can only plead that I thought you were serious in saying "everybody".

Today, while you did indeed address Au, you also completely ignored the meat of his remark--namely, that while he found it unacceptable, the question is moot because it wouldn't work. You were scathing on the civil liberties issue, saying that you were perfectly okay with hypocritical lip service so long as actual extra attention was given.

Thus you were taking a cheap shot and yet ignoring what Au and I (hence my response) were saying about effectiveness and in fact were instead claiming that it was effective, without offering any proof or substance. I dislike cheap mockery, and since you were completely missing the point, I responded. I believe that this is acceptable forum debate behavior, and am reasonably sure that many other people--including you--have responded to posts that were not addressed to them. I will be happy to provide you with cites of your posts should your memory require any assistance.

In the meantime, I would be interested in any numbers you have to support your faith in profiling as an effective way of protecting your frail ego's frame while in flight.

24. Francis Urquhart - 10/20/2001 6:27:26 PM

Cal

You seemed concerned I had not addressed an argument you made, an argument I had not read. I simply wanted to assure you I had not read your argument.

As for the efficacy of profiling post 9/11, I suppose we shall see. You may cite the lack of those arrested as a result of profiling as an argument against. I'll leave it to someone else to counter on par, "Ethnic Profiling works. There have been no hijackings since 9/11!".

But we -civilians and authorities alike - are profiling. For example, we are more suspicious of men.

The dreaded gender profiling. It occurs as we speak. Disability-profiling (or ability profiling) as well. Ageist profiling too. Sure to prove useless once 19 women "of cover" take four planes and slam them into the turf.

Adios.

25. CalGal - 10/20/2001 6:57:28 PM

But we - civilians and authorities alike - are profiling.

You say this as if it is both revelatory and relevant, when it is neither. Have I objected to profiling as discriminatory or unfair?

You seemed concerned I had not addressed an argument you made, an argument I had not read. I simply wanted to assure you I had not read your argument.

The meat of this is inaccurate, but along with that, a nit: I was not concerned. I was scornful and contemptuous--that was, I thought, how your frail ego came to be bruised.

You may cite the lack of those arrested as a result of profiling as an argument against.

I made no cite. It was my notion of what you might consider a cite. It was sarcasm. You might not be familiar with it.

In your response, you spend one paragraph mocking--with considerable inaccuracy--what you foolishly consider my reasoning on ineffective profiling. You offer no reason for your belief that it is effective, even though it is the basis for your original "rebuttal" (for lack of a better word) to Au. And your response is "everyone profiles".

Well, Francis, I know that. I even knew that before you pointed it out. I don't care when civilians do it. I don't even care much when authorities do it, provided they aren't given formal backing to do so. But the issue at hand, and the one that you were directly mocking and hence ought to be able to back up with supporting evidence, is whether or not it is effective to profile as a way of reducing hijacking or other forms of terrorism.

Why is it that you consider profiling to be an effective means of reducing terrorism? I await your next feint. Although I always hope for the surprise of an actual answer.

26. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:04:31 PM

Dusty,

LadyC and I had a conversation about the civil liberties of illegal aliens--she seems to think they have a lot--and I built a conversation for it here

27. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:07:17 PM

Also, it occurs to me that I asked francis a question about the effectiveness of profiling, which may be off topic. If so, please refer me to another thread, Dusty. In general, I'm not sure where to draw the line--do you justify violations by their effectiveness, or does the fact that they are ineffective make the violations worse?

28. amax - 10/20/2001 7:07:36 PM

I agreed w/calgal on the bogosity of scapegoating of airport security, but I fear that I am not with her on the issue of attempting to crack down on our immigrants or the monitoring of the same.

The reason why is the larger context of how immigration works in this country. We have long open borders with both mexico and canada. Each of those borders deserves a couple of pages of posts in themselves, because the issues are so different, but I'll try to boil down the analysis so as to not bore everyone to death.

Mexico/Latin America:
It is a first prinicple that we are going to continue to have massive migration across the border no matter what legal edifices we construct or how much we fund the INS. We're talking millions of immigrants, legal or illegal, and its not really possible to monitor them in any realistic way. The economy means that immigration north will probably increase.

Canada: industrialized country with whom we conduct most of our trade, and much of that trade is in bulk items. Our borders with them are unfortified, and mostly run through vast uninhabited areas.

From both countries we have probably millions of immigrants, and we have millions more from other countries from tourism, etc. Calgal had mentioned earlier how 'all we had to do' was enforce presumably throwing these people out of the country. Even if you passed the necessary laws, the ability to actually track where people are in order to pick them up would require the creation of a police state. You would probably have to have a system of internal passports, and constant monitoring of the location of people, at all times -- esp. when you consider the scale of the task, the size of the country,and the fragmented political jurisdictions.

29. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:10:32 PM

I believe the software te FBI wants to implement to do this is called "Carnivore". EFF has done battle with this particular creature for some time now.

The governent that can with ease determine the social interests, private activities and political inclinations of its citizens and incorporate them into an easilly accessable (to government) data base is a very dangerous creature indeed.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that an unprincipled President or other crooked official would abuse this power with gusto? Think of all the times the IRS has been socked onto political enemies. How much easier to retain power when you can identify with precision EVERY politcal opponent and their vulnerabilities in the entire country from the privacy of one's keyboard! J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon would have had a ball with that kind of power. The civil rights and antiwar movements would have been shut down and Watergate never heard of.

One of the prices of political freedom is that you have to limit the power and scope of government, regardless of what promises of good it makes.

30. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:14:07 PM

Yeah, and what Cal said too. Moot, moot, moot!

31. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:21:54 PM

"Ethnic Profiling
works. There have been no hijackings since 9/11!"

There were no hijackings in the equivalent time frame prior to 9/11 either....

32. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 7:28:21 PM

"the civil liberties of illegal aliens"

If you want to get picky about it, if illegal aliens fall under the jurisdiction of the government then the 14A applies to them as well. If they don't then the government has no power over them, not a situation most of us would want to see. SCOTUS has ruled recently that they may not be detained indefinitely without cause nor may they be denied habeus corpus.

33. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:40:44 PM

It is a first prinicple that we are going to continue to have massive migration across the border no matter what legal edifices we construct or how much we fund the INS.

Your "first principle" doesn't meet the definition. It is derived from something prior--namely, Even if you passed the necessary laws, the ability to actually track where people are in order to pick them up would require the creation of a police state. You would probably have to have a system of internal passports, and constant monitoring of the location of people, at all times -- esp. when you consider the scale of the task, the size of the country,and the fragmented political jurisdictions.

Buzz. Thanks for playing. Your first principle is thrown out. It most certainly can't be accepted as a given.

Second, your caveat "even if you passed the necessary laws" is amusing as hell because dude, we have passed the necessary laws. Hence the term "illegal".

34. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:41:56 PM

As far as throwing out illegal aliens, it would be easy enough to do and we don't have to "track where people are in order to pick them up". Heck, if we're ever at the point where there are few enough people to track them down to pick them up, yay us. In the meantime, we just go to various barrios and start asking for papers. We demand the driver's license records of every state and compare them against our student and business visas, pulling all the many, many duplicates and lo! we've tracked them down, too.

Then, as I said before, we just make it mandatory for certain basic activities: renting or buying a home, renting or buying a car, any sort of travel, getting a drivers license, insurance of any sort, and of course, holding down a job, to require documentation. Oh, and guess what? Social security identification won't do any more. Neither will driver's licenses, unless it has been recently verified by the DMV to be matched to a valid birth certificate. Only thing that will work is a passport, birth certificate, or a valid visa.

Now, I think there will be ways of simplifying this. I still think the DMV is a solid way to do it--the one thing they manage rather well is tracking people. But the newer licenses can be managed differently--citizens get one type of license, that clearly identifies them as a citizen. Legal aliens here as students or on work visas get a different license, must be renewed every year or until the visa expires, whichever comes first. You can't get a driver's license if you are visiting the country.

Fraud is, of course, the main problem. But making the penalties a lot stiffer will help--jail time for knowingly hiring an illegal, jail time before deportation if you are here illegally, and so on. Civil libertarians should be delighted--we'll need to end the war on drugs in order to make room in the jails!

35. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:43:57 PM

I don't think the government needs new laws or even better electronic equipment to watch aliens or us. By the government's own admission, it had information about the terrorist long before 9-11, but,they whined, there was just too much information, and it was in pieces. Likewise, there has always been empire building and turn wars between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. I think the home security office should have control over all of them, coordinate actions, and especially how to gather, collate, and analyze information received.

And, there have been instances when officials, as named by AU that had a ball with existing laws.

I think profiling is untenable and would result mostly in the officals looking like racist morons.
I don't think it would work and as Francis said, we have it already. The papers are full of cops doing it and looking like fools.

Cal, I read the case Lady Chaos cites and some of the regs. and she is right. Aliens, even illegal ones, do have rights.

Ashcroft frightens me. He would love to have those laws and use them as he wishes. Look at his background. He even exaggerated to Congress and his aides had to make amends for him. "Oh he's new here" blah blah. He looks like a petty and vindictive man. I would not want him to be able to have any more ways to snoop...and I have nothing to hide, sadly.

National identity cards? I too think they could easily be counterfeited. And, we almost have them now...we are required to get social security cards, birth certificates, driver's licenses, voter registration if we want to vote, passports if we go abroad. All that info gets stored someplace. I know that both IRS and SSA have access to that information, once it all goes to the data banks in Baltimore.

36. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:45:06 PM

If you want to get picky about it, if illegal aliens fall under the jurisdiction of the government then the 14A applies to them as well.

Is this what LadyC refers to, that they said "people" instead of "citizens"? We cover that in the conversation, if you note. LadyC feels that illegal aliens are due the same rights as legal aliens. I think this is nonsense, because if that was so then we couldn't make immigration laws and we couldn't throw illegal aliens out. We can do both, so by definition they don't have the same rights. I think the due process we have been giving illegal aliens is disgusting, frankly. There is no reason to keep them in jail prior to finding the right to deport them. If they can't prove that they have the right to be in this country, they get their asses kicked out. Makes sense to me that they can't languish in our jails. Why should we spend the money? Kick them out.

37. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:49:46 PM

Cal,

If just visiting here, no driver's license? Even students who are allowed to work? Well, that will cut down on traffic problems that's for sure.

As a rule, illegals who are caught don't spend too much time languishing in jails. Usually, as I recall, they have about a week to prove they are legal, or petition, or it's involuntary departure time for them.

38. Absensia - 10/20/2001 7:51:45 PM

Lady C was saying that if some illegal aliens had ties to the community, and perhaps a child born here who was, of course, a US citizen, then that illegal had a right for a hearing and had a right for the child to petition for a visa for it's parent. That was what the USSC help.

39. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:53:54 PM

Aliens, even illegal ones, do have rights.

Actually, I said they have no rights to most civil liberties. Which is quite different from saying they have no rights at all. I specifically said they should have all rights if they enter our justice system.

But they don't have plenty of rights. They don't have the right to work here without permission. They don't have the right to stay here unless we allow them to. We can change or alter their right to stay here at any time, we can decide not to grant any more visas to countries, we can do whatever the hell we want. Now, I grant you that we'd have to pass laws to do these things, but they have no guaranteed rights save those we give them.

If we have the ability to deny them the ability to work without the right type of visa--and we do--then we have the ability to deny non-citizens the ability to travel or rent or buy without proving that they have the right to do so.

That's just legal aliens. Illegal aliens have no right to stay in this country, which gives them almost no rights at all, unless they are in the justice system.

Even the cite that LadyC gave could be worked around. But then, it'd be a moot point because the parents couldn't give a legal residence to prove that they qualified for a school district, since they wouldn't be allowed to rent. But in any event, the rationale was that kids who are living here have the right to go to school. The point of the Texas law was not to get illegals out of the country, but to deny their children the right to go to school. Any law that had as its purpose the goal of removing illegals from the country would probably be able to argue, quite effectively, that the intent of the law is to remove the children and their parents from the country, not deny them an education while they are living here.

40. CalGal - 10/20/2001 7:57:08 PM

Even students who are allowed to work? Well, that will cut down on traffic problems that's for sure.

No, students and H1Bs could have licenses. Renewed once a year and set to expire when their visa was. Schools and businesses would notify the DMV when they left, and their license would be suspended, insurance company notified, etc.

41. amax - 10/20/2001 7:58:21 PM

The problem with the measures that you laid out, Calgal, is that it assumes that there would be no counter measures taken by immigrants and the people who stand to lose from a crackdown. Even if you made your legal system and your checks airtight, the most likely thing to happen would be that that part of the economy would simply go underground -- a system would evolve where employers simply paid cash to illegals in exchange for work and took measures that would make it difficult for the feds to prove that the illegal was in fact working for them. The existing subeconomy that manufactures identities would simply grow, and become more profitable.

42. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:01:47 PM

As a rule, illegals who are caught don't spend too much time languishing in jails.

A week is too long, and way the hell too much money for us to bother with. They either have a visa or they don't. There will be a record somewhere or there won't. They have 24 hours to produce or they are booted--although if it turns out they were here legally and just couldn't come up with the goods they can come back.

ady C was saying that if some illegal aliens had ties to the community, and perhaps a child born here who was, of course, a US citizen, then that illegal had a right for a hearing and had a right for the child to petition for a visa for it's parent.

The "ties" issue is fucking bullshit and makes a mockery of the laws. Besides, since my rules will make it impossible for them to legally rent an apartment, get a job, get a license, get insurance, or send their kids to school, they won't have any ties. As for the kids, I am nearly sure there is a restriction on that, because otherwise every Mexican mama would be running up here in the 9th month. I mean, talk about a fucking law that gives illegals a reason to go forth and multiply. I really don't think so.

For that matter, the terrorists could use that law very easily to become legal.

43. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:05:48 PM

Amax,

Um. Your #41 is nothing more than what we have now. My restrictions are far more stringent and requires the cooperation not only of employers, but apartment owners, the DMV, and a host of other agencies.

Besides, you have to remember that the only reason the situation has been allowed to get as bad as it is is because the INS had funding cut and spent all their time focusing on the border. My plan, of course, calls for near total neglect of the border--who cares, after all, if they get in?--and constant information scanning to ensure no fraudulent attempts to bypass the laws and rent apartments, give jobs, etc.

44. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:05:56 PM

Cal, Point taken re rights vs. civil liberties. But, if the child is born in the US, it is an American citizen. Generally a US citizen cannot be deported. I know of only one situation where both parents were aliens, legal, living here in this state. Child was born here. Father took child and moved back to Mexico. Refused to return, even though he had violated a temporary order giving the mother custody during an impending divorce.

After a lot of social service investigating the court held it was in the best interest of the child to be with the father. The state supremes upheld the decision and emphasized the child was still an American and had all US rights but as a small child, his welfare came first.

I know what the Texas case said, but there was a lot of language more than just about charging the parents tuition if they put their kids in US schools.

We "could" change some exisiting laws, and even supreme court decisions. With this administration and this USSC I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. I don't like it. And face it...that's not going to stop terrorists. Terrorists don't show up with their kids, put them in schools, etc., at least as far as I know.

If an alien is in the country legally, then I think they would have civil liberties and to take away things like driving, et al, would probably be illegal and a violation of equal protection.

45. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:07:18 PM

Oh, Abs, I meant to say that I know a parent used to be able to file for AFDC for a citizen child even if they were illegal, but that was only because they didn't check. Don't know what happened to that after welfare reform.

46. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:10:20 PM

If an alien is in the country legally, then I think they would have civil liberties and to take away things like driving, et al, would probably be illegal and a violation of equal protection.

But I am not taking it away from legal aliens. However, they don't have the same civil liberties and we can put an additional requirement on them to get things like apartments, driver's licenses, and so on--for starters, proof that they are in the country legally and agreement that they will lose the right the minute their status changes.

I am not saying that children born to illegal parents should be denied citizenship--although frankly, I am tempted to. I think a better solution would be to put the parent in jail for ten years and adopt the kid.

All I'm saying is that the parent is not granted legal status to be in this country just because they had a baby here. I am pretty sure that is true now.

47. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:12:50 PM

Hey all. Been in an AP workshop the past two days, but wanted to pop in on the thread. Nice going, Dusty!

48. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:12:52 PM

And I think the notion that we can't deport an illegal alien because of "undue hardship" is as laughable a notion as I've ever heard. Proof that no one in government is really serious about taking our immigration laws seriously.

49. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:15:36 PM

No call...there are not that many Mexican mothers running up here to have kids here. The number who have US born babies is not dramatic. Most have their kids when they move here.

Cal, a citizen kid can get AFDC, but what we did when I was working at Legal Services, and what they are doing now is have someone, on behalf of the child, file a petition for the mother, and then apply for AFDC. The petitions and the AFDC went through.

Even if all your laws went through, there's no way this could all be checked. Even when agenices were not doing a lot of checking, it was because they didn't have enough people and they didn't have enough people because the state and federal governments didn't have enough money to fully fund these agencies. Where will we get it now?

50. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:18:16 PM

It isn't just hardship, it's also "asylum" though that's hard to prove.

Hi Arky!

Amax is right. It's true we already have a lot of illegals working underground, but we would have more. And, there are humanity issues...their lives
are often dangerous, they live below even the poverty standard and are often mistreated.

51. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:32:19 PM

Abs, I don't think anymore it can happen. I believe welfare reform made it impossible for illegal aliens to get TANF (the new AFDC). And if any individual assists an illegal alien by filing on the mother's behalf, why isn't that illegal as well? Isn't that fraud?

Even when agenices were not doing a lot of checking, it was because they didn't have enough people and they didn't have enough people because the state and federal governments didn't have enough money to fully fund these agencies.

You know, that's not really true. I agree that there isn't a lot of money to fund the agencies, but to say that this is why illegal aliens got benefits is simply not true. The reason is that the identification process became watered down, because various groups on behalf of illegal aliens and Hispanics that were here legally but "profiled" complained that the proofs were onerous.

Tell an illegal alien that she must produce three forms of identification--a valid driver's license, proof of residence (utility bill), and a birth certificate--in order to file for support or do anything, and you have just radically increased the burden to get benefits, and you haven't significantly increased the time needed to process the request.

More than that, though, there needs to be agents actively tracking employers who hire illegals and do "roustings". Offer an illegal a work visa if they turn in an employer of illegals--only the first one gets the prize. Raid the place, and toss everyone out of the country.

It will be ugly, but do that for a year or two--as well as send everyone, especially rich people hiring illegals as maids and gardeners--to jail, and watch what happens. Especially if we couple it with a campaign reminding people that support of any illegal alien is support of terrorism and the environment that supports it.

52. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:32:35 PM

Cal, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to deny even an illegal alien freedom of religion and speech for the time it takes to try and deport them. Particularly since until they've had a hearing, the presumption the prosecution has to disprove is that they are indeed here legally.

It is that presumption that gives an illegal his/her rights. Once guilt (lack of citizenship or legal status in this case) has been established one may be deprived of one's constitutional guarentees.

The presumtion has to be in favor of the accused in immigration cases. Otherwise we can snatch you off the beach before you can get to your identity documents, declare you an illegal alien because you can't prove you aren't, and ship you back to Afghanistan where you obviously came from.

53. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:32:45 PM

Now, I doubt we'll do any of this. Because we're far more interested, as a country, in the cheap, stupid, and profoundly ineffective feel-good shit that Francis supports--oooo, look, that guy has a turban, he must be a terrorist! But the public support for illegal aliens has always been dismal--it's employers, Hispanic lobbying groups, and an inept, poorly funded INS that has caused us to focus on the borders and give everyone who gets past the gate a Get Out Of Jail Free pass. Still, I hope we can get past the defeatist nonsense that is spouted by the pro-illegal alien groups and realize that there are several solutions--including giving out work visas--that allow us to track aliens more effectively and stop the black hole of ignorance that caused 9/11.

54. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:39:52 PM

The policies that impact mostly Mexican illegals aren't the same ones which caused the terrorists of 9/11 to slip under the radar.

55. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:42:54 PM

ark:

Quite correct. Nothing we could do to stop illegal aliens from coming here would have any effect on them. They were here legally, pursuing legal ends as far as anyone could prove.

56. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:43:35 PM

Particularly since until they've had a hearing, the presumption the prosecution has to disprove is that they are indeed here legally.

No, they get no hearing (in my scenario). They can prove they are in the country legally in 24 hours, or they are gone. There is no "prosecution". That's nonsense. We don't have to demonstrate that they are here illegally, there is no "reasonable doubt".

Otherwise we can snatch you off the beach before you can get to your identity documents, declare you an illegal alien because you can't prove you aren't, and ship you back to Afghanistan where you obviously came from.

Add in 24 hours and that's fine by me--also, if they were in the country legally and just couldn't prove it in 24 hours, they can come back.

We don't owe illegal aliens--or even legal ones--the cost that we now bear. If there are Supreme Court decisions explicitly giving us the responsibility to establish their illegal status beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can just challenge them and see what the SC says. If the cost is causing us to avoid prosecutions and allow illegals, which is causing the states to ignore laws requiring citizenship to make their lives easier, then we need to reduce the cost--and I really don't see why we owe them anything.

Otherwise, we can just change the definition of a legal visa to include the agreement to leave the country if they can't produce the visa within 24 hours of being asked. Then anyone who couldn't prove they were a citizen would either be a legal or illegal alien, and could be tossed in 24 hours regardless.

57. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:43:54 PM

See, the real issue isn't the aliens civil rights. Provided that the end result is them being forced to leave the country, all we have to do is construct laws that allow it. It's not our standing as Americans that are threatened, since we aren't changing the rights of Americans. The real issue is if we ever make being an alien here so onerous that people stop coming here because we aren't friendly to them. I think we have a long way to go before that becomes a risk.

58. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:44:38 PM

The policies that impact mostly Mexican illegals aren't the same ones which caused the terrorists of 9/11 to slip under the radar.

Yes, they are.

59. Absensia - 10/20/2001 8:45:57 PM

Cal, some policies were relaxed in welfare, but only because of the large numbers of recipients and the small number of workers. The agencies are still understaffed. And need more money. The welform act has been applied somewhat differently in different states. It's not illegal for an attorney to apply, on behalf of a child, to have it's mother's status changed.

Arky is right. We get rid of all the illegal Mexicans, so what? If a terrorist, or a group of them want in, they will get in, unless the feds get their act together, learn to share their info with one another, and for that matter, learn to read what info they have.

60. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 8:47:12 PM

Elaborate with evidence, please. These people had expired student or tourist visas, lived in nicer neighborhoods with money and credit cards, some were here legally, some had aliases--their means in general of avoiding detection were more sophisticated and better funded than a simple border-crossing migrant worker.

61. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 8:52:57 PM

The simple solution to the illegal alien "problem" is to allow anyone to come here who wants to. We issue a work permit to everyone who is not demonstrably a criminal. End of illegal alien "problem". Illegal aliens are only a problem because they are illegal and hence not able to take advantage of the legal protection the rest of us have. (Same reason 90% of the social damage caused by illegal drugs occurs. No legal avenues for handling disputes, no FDA QC regs on the substances and a huge resulting underground economy.)

Xenophobes will not approve of my solution.

62. CalGal - 10/20/2001 8:59:58 PM

The reason the visa situation isn't tightened down on hard is because no one can make a peep about illegal aliens without opening the can of worms that says half of them are from Mexico. So once it became clear that people were violating visas and just hanging out here and working, no one could do anything about it because there wasn't the political will to address Mexican and other Hispanic illegal workers. Hence, the lax visa policies can be laid at the door of illegal Mexican immigrants.

But it goes beyond that root cause into specifics. Why were the terrorists able to rent a car? Because they had a driver's license. Why did they have a driver's license? Because many states--including the ones where all or most of them had licenses (Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio)--are incredibly lax about getting meaningful identification for driver's licenses. Why? Because they were having so much trouble with unlicensed, uninsured illegal Mexican drivers that they figured it would be easier to let them get licensed and insured than fuss about their status--after all, it was a fed problem.

Why were they able to have bank accounts and credit cards? A lot of the same reasons. The police were tired of all the thefts that were caused by illegals keeping their money in mattresses, so they loosened the restrictions on opening bank accounts, to encourage illegals to put their money in banks and spare the infrastructure the hassle.

They didn't leave these accounts open for more than a day or two, I bet. Not in the states plan, but there you have it.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Just because the states only meant to help simple border-crossing migrant workers, they inadvertently made life easier for sophisticated money laundering terrorists--as well as a fair amount of Europeans who live here illegally as well.

63. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:02:03 PM

We issue a work permit to everyone who is not demonstrably a criminal.

And we boot them out when they aren't working? What about the ones who just want to live here, have the money to support themselves, but don't want to work?

Incidentally, this solution is fine by me. It will never fly, but the issue is tracking who is here. Mind you, the same requirements I have--renting, etc--should still apply.

64. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:08:58 PM

"Why
were the terrorists able to rent a car?"

Because they were clever people and would have gotten a car regardless. You delude yourself to think that these people weren't as bright as you or I.

65. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:14:07 PM

"What
about the ones who just want to live here, have the
money to support themselves, but don't want to work?"

They stay and contribute to the economy by simply spending. The only thing I ask is that they not be able to receive direct financial assistance. I have yet to meet an illegal immigrant who came here for reasons other than work and I have met more than a couple. If the jobs weren't here they wouldn't come.

66. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 9:20:22 PM

We don't have to demonstrate that they are here illegally, there is no "reasonable doubt".

Of course we do. Of course there has to be "reasonable doubt". Your plan holds every person of the United States guilty of illegal immigration unless they can prove otherwise. The fact is that you cannot "prove" that you aren't here illegally. Your CDL might have been obtained fraudulently. Your birth certificate as well. You've got 24 hours to prove they weren't.

Oh by the way, you've got to prove it from jail. And your assets have been seized since they don't have to prove you guilty of anything to do that as well. Good luck.

67. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 9:29:00 PM

Cal,
Message # 62

I don't see the cause and effect there. What is the specific evidence that policies regarding Mexican illegals affected policies in dealing with these terrorists? For one thing, the drivers' licenses came from VA illegally because of corruption and problems in that particular state's system which had nothing to do with illegal immigrant workers.

We share a long and difficult to monitor southern border with a nation who's northern border has a lot of poverty. I don't and have never seen a fuss made about that fact. If anything bothers the government, state or federal, about addressing that problem it's the people who are using these workers for cheap labor they don't have in any way to account for.

Why in the world would feds care if illegals had their money stolen from mattresses? What hassles to the infrastructure would that cause? Are they known to report theft to the police being here illegally? I wouldn't think I'd want the attention. Are they generally known to have bank accounts and credit cards as a result of federal changes in policy due to that? As for the ones the terrorists had, some were used after 9/11.

And illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars?

68. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 9:30:43 PM

Got company, gotta go. May be back later, maybe not.

69. amax - 10/20/2001 9:32:44 PM

I wish I could remember where, but I recall reading about the difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' vs. 'Contentental' approaches to the role of the state. It was the author's contention that the British legal system emphasised a small role for the state in regulating the nation, but those laws it did make were strictly enforced. Places with more statism, like France etc, tend to extensively regulate most aspects of daily existence, but because there are so many regulations, regulation itself tends to be ignored in those countries. The overall effect becomes that of the state being able to exercise arbitrary power by selectively prosecuting whomever it wishes once it decides to look into it.

70. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:35:37 PM

The only thing I ask is that they not be able to receive direct financial assistance. I have yet to meet an illegal immigrant who came here for reasons other than work and I have met more than a couple.

As if your personal experience is some sort of evidence. As Abs just pointed out above, they had to form a whole procedure to protect illegal immigrants from deportation in order for them to file for welfare. It's a huge problem, even now.

And since we provide direct financial assistance to citizens, there has to be some way of ensuring that this assistance doesn't go to the people who are here "only to work". So how do you propose to ensure that they don't get welfare? And are they goingn to have to pay into Social Security? Medicare? What if they get disabled over here?

I suspect your plan will just end up being more of the same. I approve of giving all workers a chance to be here, but not without a job. Otherwise, scooch.

71. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:42:49 PM

Your plan holds every person of the United States guilty of illegal immigration unless they can prove otherwise.

The authorities would have a right to ask if they had a reasonable suspicion--just as the cops now have the right to ask for id. But add to that the rule that the various activities I mentioned would be restricted to citizens and legal aliens, so i8t would be harder to avoid reasonable suspicion.

Your CDL might have been obtained fraudulently. Your birth certificate as well.

It is extremely difficult to forge an American passport--cost, about $40? Maybe more, I don't know. Realistically, the only American born people who would need a passport would be those who didn't have American accents. But in any event, it has always been the onus of the citizen to provide identification when asked. No one who is a real citizen will ever be deported and you know it.

I think birth certificates could be made a much sounder means of identification. For example, no copies sent out via mail request. I haven't checked this in a awhile, I think they've closed a lot of the loopholes.

As for legal aliens, it would be much simpler for them to name the embassy where they obtained their visa, or to have their visa number handy, etc. So despite your drama, the logistics aren't that difficult.

And your assets have been seized since they don't have to prove you guilty of anything to do that as well.

Not until after the 24 hours are up. But if you are an illegal alien, you acquired the property illegally. Them's the breaks.

Keep in mind that if you regularly had to provide valid id, there would rapidly be ways of checking it quickly. All Americans now proffer their driver's licenses as a matter of course, and if various states hadn't perverted it--and the Soc Sec system--it would still be useful. In fact, I think it could still be made useful.

72. Absensia - 10/20/2001 9:48:01 PM

Well, from the recent info about the terrorists as brought to us from tv, they won't work here since they have a lot of money; they probably can get drivers' licenses by having a "legal alien" who looks similar to them obtain it, etc. The illegal alien argument as far as Mexicans won't stop terrorists. I don't remember any terrorist activities on the part of illegal alien Mexicans, but maybe I'm wrong.

73. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:50:36 PM

Why in the world would feds care if illegals had their money stolen from mattresses?

Feds don't care. States do. States regularly defy federal regulations on illegal immigrants because it is too much of a hassle. They'd rather take the money for the insurance, and the bank charges, and have less hassle in infrastructure, because after all they are going to have to pay for some of them on welfare despite no id as well.

And why do you suppose Virginia DMV has so much corruption? Because there is a huge demand for driver's licenses without identification. Driven by illegals--of which half are Mexicans. Mexicans created the groundwork for a lax policy on valid identification. Other illegal aliens, generally with more money and better education, then took advantage of it. Including terrorists.

I don't see how you don't follow cause and effect. It is possible that it's something Californians and Texans are more aware of, given that they carry a disproportionate amount of the burden.

And illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars?

Ah. Now I understand. Yes. Illegal migrant workers are widely owning and driving cars. In North Carolina alone, 380,000 drivers licenses are issued with 99-999-9999 as the SocSecNo. Figure that the overwhelming majority of those are illegal aliens, and then figure half of those are Mexicans (North Carolina has a huge illegal alien population and growing fast). And figure that this is just North Carolina.

74. CalGal - 10/20/2001 9:58:21 PM

Well, from the recent info about the terrorists as brought to us from tv, they won't work here since they have a lot of money; they probably can get drivers' licenses by having a "legal alien" who looks similar to them obtain it, etc.

Actually, they made most of their money living as petty thieves, stealing laptops and cell phones. If any of them had had to go to the bother of having a legal alien get their driver's license for them, it would be proof that we gave a damn about legal vs. illegal immigrants. The fact is that we don't give a damn, and they didn't have to. Just as their use of boxcutters and small knives validated the fact that our airport security is sufficient, their lack of any hassle in getting id, apartments, and the like demonstrates that our immigration is a joke. Which is why I get so irritated at people fussing over airline security and not over immigration. When anyone mentions immigration on air, they are only talking about the borders--as if they matter.

The illegal alien argument as far as Mexicans won't stop terrorists.

It's not "as far as Mexicans". My point was that the various lobbies for Mexican illegals (labor, hispanics, and agribusiness) have clogged any attempt at real immigration laws, and made it impossibly easy for any one illegal, regardless of where they are from, to live here easily without scrutiny.

That needs to change. Instead of assuming that migrant workers are the only illegals and therefore not dangerous, we have to act as if we actually have an immigration system and that all illegals are created equal. Hence an illegal Swede is equal to an illegal Mexican who is equal to an illegal Arab terrorist. The rules I've proposed will make it equally difficult for all.

It's not so much that it will stop terrorism, but it will make it far more difficult for them to operate, and far easier for us to track them.

75. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:00:09 PM

Well, your last paragraph provided what I was wanting--specifics. I'd not heard that about the SSN in North Carolina, or anywhere else, for that matter. I'm amazed they'd allow a duplicate SSN on drivers licenses in any state. Apparently a lot could be done with just tightening down on drivers licenses, since it's used as valid id on so much else that citizens do in America.

I am a Texan who's best friend and neighbor was Mexican-American for the five years I lived in Lubbock from age 7 to 12, but illegal immigrant workers have been here for some time in AR, working in the chicken houses and plants--not generally in my area, but moreso the last few years than before.

76. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:00:43 PM

Oops. Last para of #'73, that is.

77. arkymalarky - 10/20/2001 10:02:46 PM

IOW, to be clear, my best friend was a citizen. I knew a number of Mexican-Americans, and probably some illegals, though I never knew it.

78. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:03:27 PM

See, I thought you knew all that and were just arguing it didn't make any difference until I saw that question. (btw, I just realized I did the socsec sequence backwards or sideways or something)

79. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:05:59 PM

"As if your personal experience is some sort of evidence."

It is indeed evidence. Perhaps not much, but more evidence than you've presented to the contrary.

80. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:13:28 PM

I beg your pardon? Do you require a cite about illegals on welfare? Are you stupid, or just ignorant? Arky's from Arkansas, she's allowed not to know this stuff. You're from California.

81. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:14:11 PM

And I notice you didn't answer all the other questions. Buzz. Thanks for playing. Buh-bye.

82. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:19:55 PM

"But in any event, it has always been
the onus of the citizen to provide identification when
asked."

Not in America. That is a very recent addition to police power since through most of our history there were no such documents to produce.

If you are asked to produce your "documents" and have none on you, you have violated no particular law and can be tried for no particular crime. At most, if there is probable cause to believe you have comitted a crime you may be detained until your identity can be verified. At this time you will be released.

Driving without a DL is an entirely different creature. But as long as you have one in the DMV records, not having it on your person comes down to an infraction at most.

83. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:22:32 PM

Cal, it is illegal to steal from anyone, including an illegal alien. They are persons under the jurisdiction of the US and per the 14th A, get that equal protection even as they are being deported.

84. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:26:03 PM

"Do you require a cite about illegals
on welfare?"

Cal, It was you who stated the welfare well for illegals has dried up.

85. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:34:30 PM

Aliens who pay into social security should garner any benefits they paid for. It doesn't matter to me whether they were legal or illegal.

Welfare, OTOH is not a right. It isn't even an entitlement any more. No SSN? Then no welfare. Here is your ticket home if you want to leave. If someone doesn't have a job yet doesn't want welfare, you ignore them unless they commit a real crime.

86. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:34:41 PM

Because they were clever people and would have gotten a car regardless. You delude yourself to think that these people weren't as bright as you or I.

I just saw this. I am not deluded. Terrorists are way the fuck smarter than you are. And then, after the de rigeur insult, don't be a fucking moron. I make no such assumptions. Yes, they might still figure out how to rent a car. Or maybe they'll have to figure out some other way. The point is to not make it easy for them to operate under radar.

That is a very recent addition to police power since through most of our history there were no such documents to produce.

In fact, I believe the Supreme Court has limited the rights of the nasty police state you whine about, not the other way round. In any event, you first acted as if it was an outrage beyond the pale, you now admit that it isn't beyond the pale, you just don't like it. Too fucking bad. The issue is whether or not it is possible, and it is eminently possible.

If you are asked to produce your "documents" and have none on you, you have violated no particular law and can be tried for no particular crime.

Actually, you would have violated the law that says you would need to provide identification when asked. And indeed you won't be tried for any particular crime, provided that you are in the country legally. If you weren't in the country legally, you'd be deported. Likewise, if a cop asked you for id because you were acting suspiciously and he then found a bench warrant for you, I believe he'd be able to arrest you.

At most, if there is probable cause to believe you have comitted a crime you may be detained until your identity can be verified. At this time you will be released.

Right. And if you are illegal, you will be deported because it's a crime to be an illegal alien and the punishment is deportation.

87. joezan - 10/20/2001 10:35:25 PM

FWIW: The way these guys got driver's licenses was, they paid some guy who hangs around outside the DMV in Virginia(?) for this specific purpose $100. The guy went in with them (they had nothing but their passports) and vouched for them that they were indeed here legally.

The very next day, the terrorists with the one-day-old licenses brought their buddies to the same DMV office, and vouched for them.

I have resisted entirely the urge to blame any of this shit on Clinton or the Dems, but this one rests solely with them. The only reason DMV requirements are so lax in many states now is because of Motor-Voter.

88. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:36:07 PM

it is illegal to steal from anyone, including an illegal alien

Quit yapping about the 14th, I've acknowledged it already so clearly I think it doesn't apply. You may or may not agree, but it is tedious for you to bring up something that is irrelevant. You know that seizures already happen, you whine about it frequently. So clearly it won't be a problem if the government decides they want to do it. But it was you who brought up seizure. I don't care what happens to the possessions.

If you acquire property illegally, you aren't allowed to keep it. My system says it's illegal for an illegal alien to buy a car, so it's not his.

But really, I don't expect them to have much property because I expect this system to be effective at keeping them from acquiring property.

89. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:40:34 PM

The only reason DMV requirements are so lax
in many states now is because of Motor-Voter.

Wrong. Illegal aliens. Certainly in the case of Virginia and North Carolina, also Florida, I'm pretty sure. Those are considered the worst offenders, along with either Illinois or Ohio (I always getthem mixed up).

It was you who stated the welfare well for illegals has dried up.

No, I said that it was no longer legal. It was technically legal before. Or at least not specifically illegal.

Aliens who pay into social security should garner any benefits they paid for.

That's not how the system works, and you know it. You know, for someone who considers himself a systems person, you are the worst damn systems person I've ever run into.

You either make a distinction between citizen and non-citizen or you don't. The minute you do (and you are) you run into all the problems that we have in the current system. The only issue is how you solve them. You'll still have to deal with all the same issues that I'm dealing with in my solution. You haven't cut through a damn thing, you've just invented a different type of visa.

90. CalGal - 10/20/2001 10:41:53 PM

Joe, I thought I copied that from Au's post. I meant to say that yes, you are right about the 100 bucks, though. I was going to mention that but I couldn't remember where I'd read it and if it was Florida or Virginia that had the "let some other driver vouch for you" system.

91. joezan - 10/20/2001 10:44:06 PM

Wrong. Illegal aliens. Certainly in the case of Virginia and North Carolina, also Florida, I'm pretty sure. Those are considered the worst offenders, along with either Illinois or Ohio (I always get them mixed up).

Please elaborate.

I'm re-stating what I heard earlier this week on NPR.

92. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:44:41 PM

If you do not care about what happens to their posessions then they have every reason not to care about yours. So if someone approriates your posessions it will be okay in the moral sense (although not in a legal sense). Since you have already pronounced that property rights mean nothing to you unless the property owner is a legal US citzen, they may, with equal moral certainty pronounce that top them only illegal aliens' property rights count.

Face it Cal, you've disregarded the plain wording of the 14A and all recent court rulings on it and instead taken the cause of the xenophobe and the fascist for your own.

93. Absensia - 10/20/2001 10:46:56 PM

Joe,
Don't know about Virgina, but here it's different. I lost my driver's license somewhere, two years ago. I called Dept of MV and asked what I needed to get a new one. They said "One piece of picture i.d, preferrably your DL, your birth certificate, proof of where you live." Since I didn't have any picure i.d., especially my driver's license I asked if I could bring a friend who had her d.l. and who would vouch for me. They said "No!" Fortunately, I found my old d.l. that I hadn't thrown away when I got my new one, so was able to get the current one replaced.

They certainly didn't allow me to bring a friend to vouch for me.

94. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:48:16 PM

"a distinction between citizen and
non-citizen or you don't"

Not an all or nothing thing at all.

In some cases you can make the distinction and in others you can't. The ones you can't make the distinctions on are pretty clearly defined by the constitution in the body and the amendments.

You really hate to be restrained by those pesky rules, don't you?

95. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:49:20 PM

Goodbye all. I have places to do and things to go.

96. AuNaturel - 10/20/2001 10:51:18 PM

Addendum to #94:

You do not need any kind of visa to enjoy constitutional protections. Including the 14A.

97. joezan - 10/20/2001 11:02:19 PM

AuN:

Same here in MI.

But apparently there are at least a couple of states with very lax requirements.

And, BTW - I would have no problem with a strict, nationwide standard for obtaining a dl, including very sophisticated anti-counterfeiting features.

I mean, come on - it's the fucking 21st century here. Let's all wake up and smell the damn coffee.

98. dusty - 10/20/2001 11:32:11 PM

I've added the Conversation: Civil Liberties for Noncitizens (from the Attack thread) to the butterscotch bar.

99. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:08:23 AM

Joe,

I was saying that you were wrong about it being the motor voter law that caused the laxness. I'm pretty sure that motor voter caused laxness in voter registration, but not in getting a driver's license. Driver's license is by state, and a few states are notoriously lax; all of them are suspected to be because of the advantages of licensing their illegal aliens.

101. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:22:41 AM

Oh lordy, this is rich. From the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed piece that spells out to the letter the rationale I hold responsible for 9/11.

Let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.
Other immigration foes worry about welfare fraud. "It's like giving illegal aliens the equivalent of an ATM card for all our services," Danielle Elliot of Californians for Population Stabilization, told the Los Angeles Times. But the lack of driver's licenses also prevents illegals [and terrorists, says Cal] from buying insurance, opening bank accounts, cashing checks and doing a myriad of other things that don't cost the taxpayer a dime. (emphasis mine) Besides, all of this begs the question: Why did the humble driver's license metamorphose into a kind of national identity card?

....
While state governments should cooperate with federal law-enforcement officials, it's simply not their job to enforce immigration laws. Maintaining the safety of the highways and byways in their jurisdiction, however, is their job. "There's a lot of people who feel like illegal immigrants shouldn't be here at all, much less have a driver's license, but . . . highway safety is our No. 1 concern," a spokesman for the North Carolina Motor Vehicles Department told the Associated Press.

North Carolina, along with Utah and Tennessee, has stopped asking driver's-license applicants to present their Social Security cards. (emphasis mine)

... Robert Olson, police chief of Minneapolis, made the point at a rally advocating driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Mr. Olson noted that his officers would protect noncitizens from murder, rape and robbery--without threatening to report them to the feds. "The Minneapolis police department is not the INS. . . . We are not the Federali," he said.


Look at the date.

103. CalGal - 10/21/2001 12:39:45 AM

Ha! I found a free copy of the first piece I read on driver's license in the NY Times.

Read this piece in light of 9/11:

Some States Move to Issue Driver Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

104. CalGal - 10/21/2001 1:08:39 AM

Another Times article on Ambivalent Immigration attitude in states

105. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 2:54:20 AM

Joezan:

Nationwide minimum standards for DLs might not be a bad idea simply for public safety and might even pass constitutional muster. (Although I have serious reservations about any scheme which impinges on the states' traditional powers.)

Cal doesn't seem to understand the depth of the resistance that a national ID card one must have on one's person at all times and instantly present on demand would generate. It's not just illegals. You will have lost the right wing Christians, civil libertarians and philosphical libertarians all in one swell foop.

I still have not the foggiest idea of how exactly this card is supposed to stop terrorists. I don't consider major incursions on the constitution to be worth the small gain of making a would be terrorist carry his national ID card (real or fake) while he attacked the flight crew of an pasenger jet wth a box cutter.

106. Toenails - 10/21/2001 8:16:22 AM

Identity cards complete with fingerprints, valid address, photograph capable of being computer-matched with the carrier's own facial configuration.

This would be a step in overcoming our many deficiencies in border-control. The card should be ubiquitous, i.e., it should be difficult to function in the society without its constant use.

This isn't tyranny, it is merely using the tools of modern times to afford some semblance of organization to an overcrowded, overcomplicated social structure.

It would actually become a convenience to any law-abiding citizen or legal alien. It would be a royal pain in the ass for illegals and a genuine barrier to their activities. The fact that it wouldn't be a foolproof barrier shouldn't be allowed to detract from its genuine utility in many contexts.

Credit cards should carry the same information as is required on the high-tech identity cards. This could make it much more difficult for terrorists and other would-be criminals to maneuver.

The sweeping statements made on this thread earlier about the supposedly clear unconstitutionality of this proposal are simply untrue. No doubt there would be a raging argument about the proposal's constitutionality, but I see no fatal defect in applying it in this country.

107. arkymalarky - 10/21/2001 9:57:56 AM

All right, I have heard so much about protecting your SSN, and not using it for public id, etc, though you have to provide it for almost everything it seems, so I don't really understand the threat. If we tighten up birth certificate, SS, and driver's license acquisition for native born citizens, and id for international visitors and people from other nations who become citizens here, it seems like that would be the best, broadest hole to close. If you don't have it in your car, you should be required to direct authorities to your house or hotel and produce it on request.

The fact still remains, though, that most of the terrorists at least got here legally, whether they stayed legally or not--and many of them did. We should have known much more about them coming in, and the need someone expressed to share info internationally and use the info we have is crucial to having a chance of stopping these kinds of criminals from coming in, and would probably do a lot toward monitoring our own citizens more closely, for that matter. It was pointed out on a tv program last night that we still haven't found the abortion clinic bomber (forgot his name), and authorities believe he's still hiding in North Carolina.

108. joezan - 10/21/2001 10:09:17 AM

Cal:

The explanation I heard on NPR went something like this:

It is often very difficult, for various reasons, for recent immigrants to obtain a dl. If a particular state is not getting it's immigrants registered to vote because the dl procedures are too confusing/complicated, then they start getting pressured from the feds - who generally (and certainly in the case of the Clinton admin) are a hell of a lot more concerned with who gets to vote than with who gets to drive.

So some states simply relaxed their dl ID requirements in order to comply with Motor/Voter rules.

I mean, look at the states that were mentioned as having lax requirements - NC, Utah, TN... are these states with large illegal populations?

More likely, they figured they had less cause to worry than other states would about illegals obtaining dls.

109. CalGal - 10/21/2001 11:22:40 AM

I mean, look at the states that were mentioned as having lax requirements - NC, Utah, TN... are these states with large illegal populations?

Someone's not reading the many links I just provided. Go read them. Answer: yes, they are states with large, growing illegal populations. Haven't you been reading all the news on the census over the years?

As for the rest, that is wrong. The reason for the loosened requirements are directly related to illegal aliens, and if you heard that on NPR (which I find surprising) then they are wrong--in fact, they have it entirely backwards. The whole objection to motor voter is the lax requirements of driver's licenses, not the other way round.

110. CalGal - 10/21/2001 11:28:43 AM

Au,

I've said nothing of a "national id card", but only identification that everyone already has. And since the only thing the federal government would have to do is require private businesses to get this information before allowing certain transactions--and for the police to be able to ask for id--there's nothing for right wingers, etc, to ask for.

Mind you, I think my requirement for this info prior to renting, purchases, etc, will fuss people and probably wouldn't be passed. But it is not illegal or unconstitutional.

If you don't have the foggiest idea about how this will stop terrorists, then you are a moron. The terrorist wouldn't be in the country legally, therefore he wouldn't be able to buy a plane ticket. Remember, non-citizens wouldn't be able to buy a plane ticket unless they had approval from an authorized business or school to travel.

111. dusty - 10/21/2001 12:08:43 PM

One of the provisions in the anti-terrorism bill is a sunset provision. An early version had a 5 year sunset, the more recent draft has 4 years. While a sunset provision sounds like a reasonable way to make sure any "bad" aspects of the bill automatically expire, unless re-enacted, some people argue that a sunset provision is a bad idea. These people argue that the existence of a sunset provision makes it easier to dump bad ideas into a bill, because the proponents can tell the opponents to back off—after all, the provision sunsets in a few years. These people argue that excluding the sunset provision might actually keep out some of the more egregious aspects of the bill. (Ashcroft is opposed to a sunset provision, but for a different reason.)

I think this argument has a certain intellectual merit, but I don't have experience with legislation procedures, so I don't know whether it applies in practice.

Wrt sunset provisions, I am generally in favor, but I would prefer something much shorter; 90-180 days. If there is a need for new tools immediately, I would advocate passing something quickly with a short sunset, then immediately begin working, with more deliberation, on a long-term bill.

112. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:12:58 PM

I see this thread as an excellent place to get in a plug for a good friend's law review article on forfeiture reform.

A lot of people are going to get burned by the stringent anti-money laundering laws being passed, right now.

113. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:18:10 PM

dusty,

I agree that the argument against sunset provisions has merit. Once a reactionary measure becomes law, you won't find many legislators willing to oppose renewing it down the line -- too easy to get tagged as "soft on terrorism."

114. Toenails - 10/21/2001 12:30:22 PM

"Sunset" provisions in legislation are frequently an illusory protection, because when sunset-time arrives, extension of the existing legislation is much easier than it ought to be.

True, a law that arouses a heavy negative reaction might be killable by cutting it off at sunset. More likely, however, opposition to the law's extension will be weak and unorganized, and the continuation of the law will be almost automatic.

Clearly, a law that is so oppressive that it is defended on grounds that it is "only temporary" is likely not a law one ought to favor passing in the first instance.

115. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 12:33:20 PM

What we really need is a constitutional provision similar to Florida's, which mandates that every bill passed by the legislature shall be limited to a single subject. This would prevent the many "riders" that congressmen sneak into bills, giving them cover for all sorts of objectionable provisions.

116. dusty - 10/21/2001 1:13:18 PM

LadyChaos

I thought the Congress had some similar rule about legislation, but it clearly doesn't seem to have teeth.

117. dusty - 10/21/2001 1:15:20 PM

LadyChaos
Thanks for that link. The WOSD has helped create some obnoxious legislation—I am concerned that the WOST will have the same results.

118. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 1:53:42 PM

dusty,

Congress may have such a "rule," but what we need is a constitutional amendment. As things are now, the legislative process lacks sufficient transparency for Congress to be held accountable.

119. CalGal - 10/21/2001 1:58:16 PM

I disagree that the argument against sunset provisions has any merit--and that's regardless of what one thinks of a sunset law. If a bad idea is in a bill and some idiot says "oh, not to worry, it will only be around 3 years" the answer is "well, dumbfuck, 3 years is 3 years too long."

120. Toenails - 10/21/2001 2:17:59 PM

I disagree that the argument against sunset provisions has any merit--

...Say what?

121. CalGal - 10/21/2001 2:41:47 PM

Hey, clause it out. (g)

some people argue that a sunset provision is a bad idea. These people argue that the existence of a sunset provision makes it easier to dump bad ideas into a bill, because the proponents can tell the opponents to back off-after all, the provision sunsets in a few years.

I disagree that this argument has merit.

122. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 4:07:38 PM

The argument has merit because it seems to be precisely what happens.

123. CalGal - 10/21/2001 4:41:27 PM

The argument has merit because it seems to be what happens? Did you read that sentence before you posted?

Anyway. The "argument against" sunset provisions is not what the proponents of a particular legislation say to the opposition. It would not matter what they said if they weren't successful in getting legislation passed. Since they are successful, it isn't the argument used, it is the fact that the argument wins support.

The problem with sunset provisions isn't what the proponents say, it is that sufficient people are more likely to accept legislation if it has a time limit. And since it's relatively easy to get the time limit extensions, putting a time limit in is an effective means of getting support for legislation that may ultimately prove permanent. A nice toe in the door.

Thus, the "argument against" sunset provisions is really that they are too persuasive in swaying the foolish herds, who know not what they do. Thus sunset provisions must be done away with, to protect the herds and the civil liberties that are valued by the people who know better.

124. joezan - 10/21/2001 5:36:16 PM

Cal:

I read your links last night. Nowhere do they mention any of those states having large numbers of illegals. I think you may have gotten this impression from these two statements in particular:

For these and hundreds of thousands of other illegal immigrants who have taken advantage of North Carolina's liberal rules for a license...

See - it appears that, just like our terrorist buddies, every other illegal on the east coast is wise to NC's shortcomings.

Then:

The Legislature never formally approved the state's policy, but it began to evolve in the late 1980's when immigrants began arriving in the state in large numbers. Today the state has the nation's fastest- growing Hispanic population, and businesses are eager to see their work force licensed and insured.

It does not say illegal immigrants. If such was the case, I'm sure the distinction would've been made.

As for the other states mentioned - I did not see anything about their numbers of illegals at all.

125. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:07:45 PM

"If you don't have it in your car, you should be required to direct authorities to your house or hotel and produce it on request."

There is A BIG DIFFERENCE between this and a national ID card one would find difficult to function without. The last time I used my DL for something was years ago when I hired into my current position. They wanted a valid CDL and my SS number to demonstrate residency.

National ID of the type where it would be difficult to fuction from day today without won't be enacted. The Shrub is a beter man than that. Even if he were stupid enough to go for the idea it would inevitably fail. Tens of millions of people would refuse to cooperate (I'm one) and the next election would throw out the politicians stupid enough to back such a thing.

The only good thing about the current anti-terrorism bill is that it sunsets.

126. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:20:49 PM

the answer is "well, dumbfuck, 3 years is 3 years too long."

Of course that is the obvious rational and principled answer. Politicians are not always rational or principled. There are two strong cases to be made for sunset provision:

1) Sometimes it is neccessary to enact a law on an experimental basis because the data do not exist to support or block the proposed law. The effects of the law can then be carefully studied to see if it should be made permanent. I'm inclined to think we should do this more often, rather than claim benefits that cannot possibly be anticipated.

2) Sometimes it is impossible to stop a "bad" law due to political pressure. If it is possible to force a sunset provision under the pretense of 1) above, then the issue can be debated at a later date when emotions are't as high.

127. CalGal - 10/21/2001 7:22:19 PM

Joe,

There is no reason for the rule if legal immigrants were arriving in large numbers. They would have the necessary identification to get a license.

See - it appears that, just like our terrorist buddies, every other illegal on the east coast is wise to NC's shortcomings.

Um. Duh? But NC started it because of their own illegal immigrants. If you read the links, I don't see how you missed picking that up.

Au,

I never said anything of a national id card, and you are backtracking. I said that anyone would have to prove their legal right to be in this country within 24 hours, if asked.

128. AuNaturel - 10/21/2001 7:23:10 PM

"I am concerned that the WOST will have the same results."

That's why I am so cynical about the WOST. The WOSD is little more than a war waged by a bureaucracy for perpetual power and funding. The WOST is already shaping up to be the same.

129. LadyChaos - 10/21/2001 8:09:27 PM

The reasons for NC's liberal laws on illegal immigrants can be summed up in two words:

Poultry industry.

130. labwabbit - 10/22/2001 12:30:38 PM

Poultry industry.
Same for Maine...as well as apple picking.

Hotel cleaning, crop harvesting, food service...are a few more where the percentages vary according to area.

131. clydefo - 10/22/2001 5:18:27 PM

The rack is back!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27748-2001Oct20.html

132. CalGal - 10/22/2001 5:24:15 PM

I have no problem with sodium pentathol. It's not like we're going to need to prosecute these guys. In fact, why aren't they just considered spies?

133. janjon - 10/22/2001 5:26:28 PM

they should ask joezan what to do. He'll have an answer.

134. CalGal - 10/23/2001 1:19:42 PM

What, no one else objects to sodium pentathol? Okay, dudes, give 'em the needle.

IDs All Around

Man, you know it's bad when Richard Cohen is calling for a national id.

135. labwabbit - 10/23/2001 1:47:07 PM

...don't leave home without it.

136. labwabbit - 10/23/2001 6:04:06 PM

Let's toast the end of Libel Civilities.

137. CalGal - 10/25/2001 3:49:14 PM

Man boards plane with gun

Cracks me up. He walks right on the plane with a gun, notifies the flight attendant (he didn't know the gun was there), the FBI meets him and interviews him after. Like they should be worried?

Fucking ludicrous. Check for intent first, who gives a damn (within reason) what they bring on a plane?

138. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 3:54:45 PM

Did the man say "yes" or "no" when the ticket agent asked that stupid question about whether or not he had left his bags unattended?

139. judithathome - 10/25/2001 4:04:12 PM

What would that matter, Erin?

140. CalGal - 10/25/2001 4:04:25 PM

I'm sure he said no--but it was his gun. He just didn't know it was there. He'd misplaced it a while back and couldn't remember where it was.

141. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 4:06:05 PM

Just a feeble attempt at humor. Carry on.

142. judithathome - 10/25/2001 4:08:52 PM

You make a good point, though, because I'm sure he said no and what good did it do?

143. Erin R. - 10/25/2001 4:11:57 PM

If he could carry on a gun in that manner, I don't see how hard it would be to slip a gun in someone else's belongings, then arrange to be on the same flight, etc.

144. clydefo - 10/25/2001 11:58:53 PM

Did this guy simply want attention?

Since he knew that he was simply
a "good guy" with no intention to commit mayhem, who had been passed through the security system because of some oversight, should he not have kept his mouth shut rather than wasting the time of FBI agents? They don't need him to point out flaws in the system.

145. Shannon - 10/26/2001 2:23:40 AM

Well, for one thing, he was transferring to another plane. In that situation, I certainly wouldn't want to take my chances that I'd get the gun through another security check.

146. dusty - 10/26/2001 5:57:44 PM

Now that the president has passed the anti-terrorism bill, can we get back to discussing whether it was a good thing?

An interesting article on the subject:

First, brand all the children

Excerpts:

Anthrax, Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Ashcroft and anti-terrorism legislation. We aren’t even through the first letter of the geopolitical alphabet before jumping all the way to “S” as in “screwed” as in what’s happening to civil liberties in the online world.

Am I the only one to notice how sick and twisted it is for Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Sun Microsystems’ Scott McNealy to be vocally advocating the establishment of a national ID card system?

“This means that law enforcement agencies can enter a person’s home or office, search through the person’s possessions, in some cases seize physical objects or electronic information, without the person knowing that law enforcement agents were there,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote to congressional leaders in a letter outlining their concerns about the bill.

147. CalGal - 10/26/2001 6:14:33 PM

I like the mixing and matching there. A "national id" system is nothing like letting the FBI wiretap emails. Not to say that one couldn't oppose both, but they aren't the same risks at all.

We have a defacto national id system, like it or not. The problem is the holes in the system, given how extensive its use.

148. Absensia - 10/26/2001 6:54:13 PM

Here is the cite to download the entire anti-terrorism act. It's in PDF and look for it on the far right of the screen about 1/3rd down.

The US Patriotic Act

149. robertjayb - 10/26/2001 8:15:40 PM

What a good thing we won the cold war. Otherwise, those dirty commies might be forcing us into a police state.

150. Absensia - 10/26/2001 8:23:00 PM

This day has to make old Joe McCarthy proud. Ashcroft probably IS Joe McCarthy.

151. ronski - 10/26/2001 8:46:48 PM

Given my political tendencies, I suppose I would be expected to be really upset about this bill, and about a national ID card, but I'm not about either. As for the latter, I'm still not sure it's necessary, but I have an open mind on the subject. In any case, I don't think it's going to happen, unless there is much more terrorism (specifically, foreign terrorism) on our shores. Too many people are just plain uncomfortable with the idea.

As for the bill, what saves it for me is that authorities are given these powers if they suspect terrorist activity, not if they suspect you for a host of other things. Granted, war is the health of the state and the new powers certainly might be abused. But I would hope we can deal with that later should or when it happens.

This is an initial take on the matter, subject to review. I've been too busy to study the bill closely. (Never stops me from posting, though.)

152. Absensia - 10/26/2001 9:16:20 PM

Never stops me, Ronski, either. But they can do all this stuff...it's not a bill anymore, it's the law, AND if they suspect you or I are in some way "assisting" terrorists, they are free to put wiretaps on your phone(s), read your e-mail, and even search your house without telling you until later. (I'd know, they'd have to clean up this place first.)

A lot of people say: "I have nothing to hide." But, does anyone want the feds or even locals to know "all" about personal business? Calls to your attorney that were once privileged may not be, even based on contracts or partnerships; family calls with your b-i-l, Ali, an American of Lebanese parents, might be suspect and so the feds would learn of your sister's mental health or her desire for an abortion. I don't need to go on. You know the drill.

If it turns out that you weren't involved with terrorism, no worries, the feds will move on, but they've got a list on you now, and will be checking it twice.

153. CalGal - 11/1/2001 7:06:35 PM

Referencing our previous discussion about driver's license and social security numbers:

Terrorist hijackers all had Social Security numbers, most obtained legally

"Obtained legally" doesn't mean they were here legally, but that they applied and were granted one.

Boot them out, dammit.

154. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:01:41 PM

Have to find them first, Cal. That's hard to do if they have "legall obtained" documents.

155. CalGal - 11/1/2001 8:09:14 PM

Well, for starters, they can start verifying the numbers that they do have.

156. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:20:13 PM

Who do you mean by "they" in each instance? Those that hold SS cards or drivers' licenses? All who are not citizens?

157. Absensia - 11/1/2001 8:24:20 PM

The article discusses linking agency computers among other things. It sounds good, but I could see a real mess, and delays. These days "intra-government cooperation" seems more of an oxymoron than ever.

158. CalGal - 11/1/2001 9:42:45 PM

"They" is Soc Sec admin. And in verifying them, they have a name and address for everyone. So for starters, they could send off letters to each address. Those that came back "not at this address"--flag the number. Send these numbers out to banks, require them to compare the numbers to their accounts, ditto driver's licenses, TRW, and the like.

159. Absensia - 11/1/2001 10:04:01 PM

Good in theory, but ours is such a mobile society, it would be a problem. I'm all for better security. I am skeptical about the SSA, it takes them 6 months to stop sending out benefit checks to someone deceased, after they've been notified, and on one occasion, told me the person couldn't be deceased because "they," SSA had been sending out checks inspite of my letter of notification in their file.

160. CalGal - 11/1/2001 10:11:29 PM

Of course the SSA is useless--the whole point of this exercise would be in part to stop making them useless. Turn it over to some ruthless bastard. Hey, I'll run it.

As for the "mobile society"--not a problem. For one thing, they could set a flag in the database for "verified". People could come in with their number and acceptable ID (birth certificate, passport, and if necessary visa ONLY) and validate their entry. It could be an act of citizenship. The onus would be on the SSID holder.

Also, we need to have a way to mark an SSID as invalid.

161. Absensia - 11/1/2001 10:27:45 PM

Okay, Charlie, you're in charge!

162. alistairconnor - 11/3/2001 5:27:47 AM

Green Party USA Coordinator Detained at Airport; Prevented by Armed Military Personnel from Flying to Political Meeting in Chicago
CounterPunch Wire

Armed government agents grabbed Nancy Oden, Green Party USA coordinating committee member, Thursday at Bangor International Airport in Bangor Maine, as she attempted to board an American Airlines flight to Chicago.

"An official told me that my name had been flagged in the computer," a shaken Oden said. "I was targeted because the Green Party USA opposes the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan."

Oden, a long-time organic farmer and peace activist in northern Maine, was ordered away from the plane. Military personnel with automatic weapons surrounded Oden and instructed all airlines to deny her passage on any flight.

"I was told that the airport was closed to me until further notice and that my ticket would not be refunded," Oden said.

Oden is scheduled to speak in Chicago Friday night on a panel concerning pesticides as weapons of war. She had helped to coordinate the Green Party USA's antiwar efforts these past few months, and was to report on these to The Greens national committee. "Not only did they stop me at the airport but some mysterious party had called the hotel and cancelled my reservation," Oden said.

The Greens National Committee -- the governing body of the Green Party USA -- is meeting in Chicago Nov. 2-4 to hammer out the details of national campaigns against bio-chemical warfare, the spraying of toxic pesticides, genetic engineering, and the Party's involvement in the burgeoning peace movement.

"I am shocked that US military prevented one of our prominent Green Party members from attending the meeting in Chicago," said Elizabeth Fattah, a GPUSA representative from Pennsylvania who drove to Chicago. "I am outraged at the way the Bill of Rights is being trampled upon."

163. alistairconnor - 11/3/2001 5:28:07 AM

Chicago Green activist Lionel Trepanier concluded, "The attack on the right of association of an opposition political party is chilling. The harassment of peace activists is reprehensible."

164. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 3:55:42 PM

Here's the link to that story

Does anybody in here care? Or is this just more "collateral dmage"

165. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:03:48 PM

Of course I care. Everyone thinks in terms of "illegal aliens" being stopped. But this is clearly a way to end citizens right to dissent under the first amendment, if in fact the story is true.

166. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 4:22:35 PM

Ordinarily I'd say "Wait for further press reports to come out about this." But that's like asking for U.S. press coverage of the war.

Thank goodness for internet links to european papers. We wouldn't know shit otherwise.

167. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:24:04 PM

I agree, and I'm not sure why I'm being tentative. I suspect, actually, the story is true. I believe this is just the beginning of what we shall see from John Ashcroft and his thugs.

168. Absensia - 11/3/2001 4:26:28 PM

Wonder what will happen when Ralph Nader, ALCU biggies, and anyone viewed as a "dissent" by Bush, tries to fly to a meeting. "Sorry Mr. Gore, by the airport is closed to you."

169. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:13:10 PM

If it had been reported in "further press coverage" that you so doubt, they would also have interviewed the airlines, confirmed that the FBI was giving them information--or at least gotten a denial. This looks like a press release.

I will be interested in seeing more responsible coverage. I doubt it's true--does anyone really think our government is that efficient? But genuine journalism, or even the poor stepsister we get here in the US, will confirm it soon enough.

170. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:14:53 PM

Thus far, people have been flagged for buying one-way tickets--although the bit about the airport being closed to them seems a bit odd.

I wonder if she's not mentioning that she threw a screaming fit when her baggage was searched, or something?

171. wonkers2 - 11/3/2001 5:34:03 PM

I doubt it, don't you?

172. Absensia - 11/3/2001 5:43:49 PM

I wouldn't be suprised if she threw a fit, once she was advised she couldn't go onboard. "Airport being closed to her" sounds like some military type might say.

This sort of thing did happen in late 60's or early 70's to some activists, and later was claimed to be a "mistake."

It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media picks it up.

173. CalGal - 11/3/2001 5:46:14 PM

I find it hard to believe anyone said "the airport is closed".

If they did, btw, I'm all for making a big deal out of it. I just find the whole story unlikely.

But if it is true, the real issue is why are they waiting til someone comes to the airport? If they are serious that some people can't fly--see, doesn't that sound wrong?--then they can notify them at the time of purchase.

174. Absensia - 11/3/2001 6:05:44 PM

Well...if the people got their "orders" not to let her fly until after the ticket was purchased, then it would make sense. And, saying the "aiport is closed" to her, could well mean she would not be allowed onto any flights of any airline and not allowed to hang out at the airport.

175. Absensia - 11/3/2001 6:07:35 PM

And what really had to hurt was that her ticket would not be "refunded."

176. CalGal - 11/3/2001 6:13:29 PM

Then where are the interviews? In every case where a middleastern guy gets booted, the reporter interviews the airline, the gate agent, anyone else they can find. All we have is her word for it, and the notion that we are currently refusing some people the right to fly. Haven't heard that mentioned anywhere. American can come forward and say so--offer the list of people who aren't allowed to fly.

177. Absensia - 11/3/2001 7:05:15 PM

I would think it would have been on CNN by now, and I watch CNN on a regular basis.

178. CalGal - 11/3/2001 7:27:31 PM

Lordy, I love it when I'm right.

The rest of the story

Green Party activist Nancy Oden was grounded at Bangor International Airport on Thursday after reportedly becoming uncooperative when she was targeted for additional screening.

and

Oden said that while she asked security staff not to touch her with the wand, she did allow them to complete their search of both her person and her baggage. Oden said that she did pull away from a National Guardsman when he grabbed her left arm and asked her if she ?knew what happened on September 11,? she said.

While acknowledging that Oden was singled out for added extensive screening, authorities said it was more likely due to the manner in which she purchased her ticket than for her activist past.

Under newly adopted FAA regulations, more passengers - either randomly or based on a computerized profile - are being targeted for more intense screening during the boarding process.

In short, the way she bought the ticket caused a flag to be set. She then objected to the metal wand and probably threw a fit when a sarcastic National Guard said, in response to her complaints, "Lady, don't you remember what happened on 9/11?"

It is a bad idea to throw a fit at the airport. That can indeed get you grounded.

Really, I'm amazed that Cellar and Alistair got all gaga over the press release without noticing that it was all her side.

179. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 9:00:46 PM

A friend of mine works for a major airline. Early this morning he told me about a flight that had to be returned to LAX because of a report of some suspicious "powder." All the passengers were taken off the plane, along with their luggage, and examined -- then put on another flight.

None of this was reported on the news in any form whatsoever.

180. Shannon - 11/3/2001 9:18:05 PM

Cal, this is my favorite quote from her:

“If I had done something wrong, they should have arrested me instead of denying me my right to travel,” an upset Oden said Friday. "

Um, she thinks that only arrest-worthy things can keep you off a plane? She'd rather be arrested than not allowed to board?

181. CalGal - 11/3/2001 9:28:28 PM

Early this morning he told me about a flight that had to be returned to LAX because of a report of some suspicious "powder." All the passengers were taken off the plane, along with their luggage, and examined -- then put on another flight.

Actually, I did read about that.

Shannon--well, of course! Plus, she'd want to sue if she'd been arrested.

I am really astonished--I saw that "article" posted at another forum, too, with utterly no questioning of it.

182. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 9:53:14 PM

I'm happy that stupid cunt got booted off that flight. Everyone else has to go through certain procedures. When asked to go through more extensive screening -- as this lady was -- the vast majority of people are, again, perfectly willing to comply. They are willing to do this because they want to be on a safe flight.

Now here come the usual suspects (Alistair Connor and Cellardoor) attributing it to political bias.

At LAX, I've twice been selected by airport security to have my baggage gone through. I imagine they do this because I'm a single male who goes back and forth between Asia and the U.S. quite a bit. But it could be because they don't like the way I look. Who knows and who cares. I do know that they go through everything I own when they do the searches. It's inconvenient and sometimes humiliating (who likes people thumbing through their dirty underwear). But I always cooperate.

183. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:06:27 PM

They'll appreciate that coopertaive attitude as they steer you toward the ovens Kapo!

184. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 10:14:44 PM

Cellar Door --

But they aren't steering me (or you) towards the ovens. They are steering me towards a line which is designed to prevent the free flow of drugs into the country. Even if you disagree with the aim (as I'm guessing you almost certainly do) or about the effectiveness of the method (as I do), it's clear what it is for.

The stupid Green nut in Maine also knew what the procedures were for -- increasing the safety of the airways. Had she cooperated with the authorities, she would have been on her plane and made the Green Party meeting ... on a safe flight.

185. CalGal - 11/3/2001 10:16:40 PM

I think the security measures are utterly pointless, and am really worried that I'll explode in fury the first time I have to travel. In fact, I'd rather we start preventing certain people from flying, or make it more difficult. But this Green Party bimbo isn't important enough to be on the list.

186. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:17:49 PM

Oh yeah, right. Sure. Of course. What was I thinking of? An unelected "president" put in place by a bloodless coup would have no interest whatsoever in interferring with Green party members.

187. CalGal - 11/3/2001 10:19:52 PM

Exactly. Especially when you consider that they contributed directly towards his victory.

Jaysus. Some people definitely overrate their importance.

188. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:22:46 PM

Step away from the mirror, dear.

189. PincherMartin - 11/3/2001 10:23:27 PM

Hahahaha,

Yes, if I was George Bush, I would be contributing millions of dollars to their cause, asking only that they make sure to run a candidate in every race. A deal could also be worked out to guarantee them first-class seats whenever they fly.

190. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:27:41 PM

For the past several years I've been taking every possible opportunity to talk about the soul of democracy. "Something is deeply wrong with politics today," I told anyone who would listen. And I wasn't referring to the partisan mudslinging, the negative TV ads, the excessive polling or the empty campaigns. I was talking about something fundamental, something troubling at the core of politics. The soul of democracy--the essence of the word itself--is government of, by and for the people. And the soul of democracy has been dying, drowning in a rising tide of big money contributed by a narrow, unrepresentative elite that has betrayed the faith of citizens in elf-government.

But what's happened since the September 11 attacks would seem to put the lie to my fears. Americans have rallied together in a way that I cannot remember since World War II. This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains down from the sky.

We have also been reminded that despite years of scandals and political corruption, despite the stream of stories of personal greed and pirates in Gucci scamming the Treasury, despite the retreat from the public sphere and the turn toward private privilege, despite squalor for the poor and gated communities for the rich, the great mass of Americans have not yet given up on the idea of "We, the People."


Bill Moyers

191. Cellar Door - 11/3/2001 10:29:57 PM

It's "We the Sheep," actually.

192. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:54:52 PM

"Some things just don't change. When I read that Dick Armey, the Republican leader in the Senate, said "it wouldn't be commensurate with the American spirit" to provide unemployment and other benefits to laid-off airline workers, I thought that once again the Republican Party has lived down to Harry Truman's description of the GOP as Guardians of Privilege. And as for Truman's Democratic Party--the party of the New Deal and the Fair Deal--well, it breaks my heart to report that the Democratic National Committee has used the terrorist attacks to call for widening the soft-money loophole in our election laws. How about that for a patriotic response to terrorism? "

Mencken got it right when he said, "Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it."

193. jexster - 11/3/2001 10:56:57 PM

. Democracy wasn't canceled on September 11, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings

or sheep Cllr

194. joezan - 11/3/2001 11:15:43 PM

Maybe alistair would prefer we dealt with Greenpeace wackos the way his country does, huh?

195. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 10:40:47 AM

The Green party and Greenpeace are two separate entities, joe.

196. alistairconnor - 11/4/2001 12:00:28 PM

If you're thinking of the sinking of the Greenpeace boat in Auckland, Joe, I wasn't French at the time, I was a New Zealander.

But it would have given me a chronic case of schizophrenia if I was your type of "my country right or wrong" wacko.

197. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:10:51 PM

Good snooping, btw, Cal.

I did a Google search and found nothing.

(Of course, it would've helped if I'd used Green Party, which is how I misread the original post, instead of Greenpeace).

But still...

198. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:42:12 PM

...instead of Greenpeace, which is how I misread the original post.

199. joezan - 11/4/2001 1:51:15 PM

I imagine it will take sometime for Americans - especially over-entitled, self-important wackos like Ms. Oden - some time to realize that Free Speech does not mean I can say whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want.

Still, you have to know this incident will go down in lib lore as the brownshirts' first shot across the bow of "our" civil liberties, and will be told for many years to come.

Of course, within just a few months, Ms. Oden will have been severely beaten at the gate by baton-wielding toadies yelling, IT'S BUSH TIME!!!, or something. And she will, of course, be portrayed as fully cooperative (I mean, why would she want to call attention to herself???!!!).

And, of course, she will receive a hero's welcome at the Loony Convention next week.

200. CalGal - 11/4/2001 1:52:16 PM

Actually, I get the two confused all the time. Loopy liberals.

I saw the article in another forum. I did go looking at other forums because I was hoping to find such an article--I knew there had to be one. I was also looking for Maine newspapers, but I found the link at a forum first.

201. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 2:08:10 PM

Gee whiz, you used to pride yourself on being a liberal, CG.


What happened? Got "smart" all of a sudden? Or were you just a liar to start with?

(I'll venture the latter.)

202. CalGal - 11/4/2001 2:11:22 PM

The emphasis was on loopy, Cellar. That said, I've acknowledged for years that I'm not a liberal. My views haven't changed at all. Nor did I lie. You're just a tad limited in analyzing the available alternatives.

203. Cellar Door - 11/4/2001 2:17:25 PM

"My views haven't changed at all. Nor did I lie."

How Nixonian.

204. alistairconnor - 11/5/2001 5:03:28 PM

I'd like to apologise for Message # 162. It just dropped into my mailbox and I reacted half-cocked. Since then, I have seen a lot more discussion of the incident, and it appears that the Oden woman is a complete wingnut, and very isolated within the Green movement.

205. ranheim - 11/8/2001 11:13:54 AM

Just back from a trip to Long Island's Islip (from New Orleans - via Baltimore); return to NO via Nashville and Birmingham. On Southwest.

Security at airports as I saw it is a joke. Picture ID + a ticket is all one needs. Spot checks : a further joke. A male security guard patted down a woman who was dressed in a body hugging blouse that was sleeveless. He slacks showed off her figure (not bad)- again subject to hands on 'pat down'. The guard also pressed on her shoes. Do you think that the guard considered this one of the perqs of his job!?

I was spot checked once. The metal of my belt buckle was sensitive enough to trigger the 'wand' they use. Loose change repeatedly caused the wand to be triggered. I wonder if the security powers-that- be (not the guards) have ever heard of the word plastic?

For prospective terrorists, I saw nothing that I would fear. Picture IDs are not hard to purchase. You must have a ticket to get on board. And that would be all one needed to board any aircraft.

So far as I am concerned, this is all cosmetic in an attempt to convince portions of the USA public that something is being done to protect them. LOL. What I saw and experienced was a failure.

206. Absensia - 11/9/2001 6:07:42 AM

Ashcroft has announced that his office will listen to all communications between those persons being held without being charged and their attorneys. There goes the right to counsel, (held not to exist if not effective by the USSC, not to mention the attorney-client privilege. Defense attorneys say they will challenge the newly announced policy.

207. CalGal - 11/9/2001 6:23:45 PM

This really bothers me. Why not turn them over to the military?

208. arkymalarky - 11/10/2001 12:35:58 AM

I'm telling you, Ashcroft is one to watch. He makes me very uncomfortable in his position.

209. Absensia - 11/10/2001 12:58:29 AM

I've said it from the beginning, Arky, and agree. He makes me very uncomfortable, especially with the makeup of this USSC. Imagine, he says justice dept. will eavesdrop on those in detention and their attorneys. And those in detention have not yet even been charged, so they can move forward. They are just being "held." If this goes ahead, then it will move on to eavesdropping between citizens and their attorneys.

210. Cellar Door - 11/10/2001 12:59:52 AM

Welcome to Brazil, folks!

211. Absensia - 11/10/2001 1:01:56 AM

Welcome to Moscow, comrades!

212. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:29:11 PM

Di Fi's immigration/visa recommendations

Works for me. Does anyone object to the recommendations? Quoted/summarized:

* Create a centralized "lookout" database.

* Develop a biometric visa card.

* The 29 countries from which visitors can enter the U.S. without a visa would be required to develop tamper-resistant, machine-readable passports and, within a year, provide biometric data on them that conformed to U.S. standards.

* All airlines, cruise lines and cross-border bus lines would have to submit passenger manifests to the central database prior to departure. Additionally, all non-U.S. citizens would submit fingerprints and other biometric data to the State
Department when applying for a visa that would be sent to a centralized database.

* Implement tougher document requirements. Federal identification documents--such as pilot's licenses, visas, immigration work authorization cards and others--would have to be fraud- and tamper-resistant, contain biometric data and, if applicable, include the visa's expiration date.

* Reform the foreign student visa program, which is a source of serious abuse... Even though Syria is one of seven countries identified by the U.S. as a terrorist state, the State Department issued visas to 14 Syrian nationals after Sept. 11 so that they could attend flight schools in Texas.

All self-respecting terrorists need a pilot license.

213. concerned - 11/13/2001 1:22:25 AM

Is safety ever worth the loss of freedom?

Well, animals are generally pretty much free to do whatever they want, but they don't have much in the way of security.

214. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 9:51:03 AM

For those of us who protested Ashcroft's nomination to A.G., commentary like this -- Ashcroft may be the scariest man in America -- comes as no surprise, now.

Also, hats off to my favorite conservative curmudgeon, Bill Safire.

215. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:57:30 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's executive order authorizing special military tribunals to try suspected terrorists was sharply criticized Wednesday by legal experts who said it flies in the face of world opinion, international law and American standards of justice.

Sieg Heil! - LAT

216. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:58:39 AM

LC..vee vill have you shot!

217. jonesatlaw - 11/15/2001 1:04:02 PM

Before I was admitted to the bar, and before I could become an officer of the court, I and everyone else who has entered the profession took an oath to perform the duties of my office as an officer of the court and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the same oath we ask the President to take, all judges and members of the military. We trust our freedom to these folks because we rely on them to take the oath seriously. Apparently when defense attorneys take this oath, it doesn't mean the same thing as when government lawyers take it. They can be trusted not to help terrorists, but we can't be.

This is an insult to the attorneys of the US, and an attack on our patriotism and loyalty. More serious however, is the assault on the fundamentals of fair trial and due process that Bush has proposed for his secret military tribunals.

It reeks of Stalin's show trials.

218. janjon - 11/15/2001 1:12:58 PM

FWIW - I placed a post about the new military tribunals in the Attack on America thread (15870), also linking Safire's column today.

It has been many years since I've been a practicing attorney (which means it is even longer since I considered civil liberty issues in law school or during my clerking years), but my wife is a litigation partner for a major firm (which, of course, means that she doesn't get any closer to civil liberty/criminal defense issues than I do).

Having said that, we were numbed to read today's Times.

I'll just repeat (and embellish) a bit of what I said in the other thread - I would like to think that this really hasn't been thought out within the Administration and that in short order more balanced measures will be forthcoming. I don't hold out much hope, though.

219. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:16:03 PM

I don't like the implementation of it--Bush says who and when. But I don't see any reason why it's wrong to say that trying terrorists is a military matter.

220. PelleNilsson - 11/15/2001 2:56:55 PM

Trying civilians in military courts is the hallmark of totalitarian states and pseudo-democracies such as Turkey and Jordan. I'm shocked that the US would resort to this.

221. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 3:00:04 PM

Ashcroft represents the problem of our own "Taliban" -- a cabal of reactionaries who think that they know what's best for all of us. The irony is that, the more they are allowed to implement their own reactionary agenda, the less defensible America as an idea becomes (even though it can still be defended as a geographic area).

Few actions reveal this more than Ashcroft's recent attack on physician-assisted suicide.

222. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 3:04:11 PM

Pelle,

Don't be shocked. As Governor of Missouri, Ashcroft frequently flaunted that State's constitution. Bush is not a lawyer, so he depends on these people for opinions on what's constitutionally allowable.

Before you can really understand this country, you have to understand the reactionary elements within it. They have an easier time of it that one would initially think, because politicians with guts to oppose them can be easily branded with labels like "soft-on-terrorism," or "towlie-huggers," or some such other pejorative.

Bush and Ashcroft just don't get it.

223. janjon - 11/15/2001 3:13:05 PM

This reactionary element lady c alludes to, Pelle, is not just the rabid un-or undereducated "economically challenged" right. Far from it. Much of this flows from sources like The Federalist Society as well. No academic slouches and certainly not amongst the poor, either. Definitely at the forefront of those who believe that they know what is best for us all, though.

224. CalGal - 11/15/2001 5:27:32 PM

Nothing wrong with the Federalist Society, frankly.

And the whole point, Pelle, is that civilians aren't terrorists.

225. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 5:51:17 PM

I'd be willing to bet that the Federalist Society would be seriously split over the military tribunals proposal. There is definitely a libertarian element within the F.S.

226. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:04:14 PM

I agree.

227. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:09:37 PM

The Federalist Society has a bunch of factions, including a Religious Right one that loves Ashcroft, and that is largely responsible for him being Attorney General and not Racicot.

228. janjon - 11/15/2001 6:11:01 PM

Well, yes, there would a split on this issue within the Federalist Society.

The glue that binds them, however, is the overwhelming sense of being impeccably correct about their view of the world. Ironically, they dislike or have disdain for many of their most ardent followers.

229. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:15:53 PM

The glue that binds them, however, is the overwhelming sense of being impeccably correct about their view of the world.

This is something liberals don't have? Not so I have noticed.

The devil is only in the details.

I would say that the Federalists are more prone to say "America is better", a statement that good grey liberals shy from.

230. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:20:31 PM

Sturmbannfuehrer Ashcroft's War on the Constitution


Thank Allah for the victories of our brave proxies....now it may be possible to turn the public's attention to the unholy shit that Bush/Delay et al have been tryin to pull whilst we were all fired up over the War Against Evil Everywhere

231. Absensia - 11/15/2001 8:59:56 PM

This new executive order is ironic, besides horrifying. Many middle eastern countries, as well as Pakistan,and the Soviet Union, had or have such military tribunals, and the US has claimed they are human rights violations.

But now, Bush and Ashcroft bring us the US military version. An alleged terrorist may be taken into custody, tried in secret, with no judges, only the military, and no set out rules of civil procedure or what evidence may be presented. If found guilty, the person may be executed, in secret. Yes, this applies only to noncitizens, but
this order is very frightening and smacks of everything this country has never been about.

Whether you agree with his views or not, Safire does point out some of the serious problems in this Executive Order.

232. Absensia - 11/15/2001 9:04:46 PM

Now, some of you may say that Dick Cheney is right in saying that these alleged terrorists don't deserve more, but remember when Jen's friend was in Afghanistan and was facing a trial and Jen and others were concerned about what kind of justice they would receive. All eight of the aid workers were "non citizens" when in Pakistan.

233. joezan - 11/15/2001 9:20:30 PM

ronski:

The Federalist Society has a bunch of factions, including a Religious Right one that loves Ashcroft, and that is largely responsible for him being Attorney General and not Racicot.

Racicot declared from the very beginning of the Bush admin. that he would not seek or accept any appointment, because gov't work just wouldn't pay enough - he has 3 kids of or near college age.

234. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:43:48 PM

Ashcroft and Bush have, with the stroke of the pen, reduced the United States to the level of Singapore, Israel, Turkey, China, et al.

235. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:45:30 PM

Just what do "alleged" terrorists deserve? What if the suspected terrorists aren't terrorists at all?

236. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:47:59 PM

Ashcroft is Hoover without a dress or McCarthy without whiskey.

237. jexster - 11/16/2001 2:09:53 AM

"The Bush administration has moved swiftly to expand its national security and law enforcement powers in ways that are intended to bypass Congress and the courts."

Thank God we the people will soon be rid of Afgh headlines so's we can pay close attention to all the bullshit goin down

238. AytchMan - 11/16/2001 2:55:08 AM

Without having read Safire's objections (not NYT-registered), I'm inclined to support the idea of military tribunals. And I say that as someone who's pretty touchy about the expansion of government power.

I think the application of the rules of military justice sounds about right for the crowd that has declared war on the US (and, by implication, most of the world's civilizations) and launched the September 11th attack (and others).

Does a military tribunal offer a potential for abuse? Sure. What government function does not? Could it be the edge of the slippery slope to a dictatorship? Sure. But if we accept the slippery slope argument wherever it applies, we take no action of any kind, ever -- the slippery slope exists everywhere.

239. Absensia - 11/16/2001 3:06:01 AM

But, this law covers "alleged" or "suspected" terrorists, not proven terrorsts. A military tribunal, with the right of trial and even execution in secret goes beyond "abuse." The fact that this type of tribunal bypasses the Congress and the Courts is an abuse. This is not a slippery slope issue. This turns around our system of justice and the guarantees we have allowed for all "people."

In addition, we have federal criminal courts and they work well. No need to bypass them. Only last week did Bush announced he would sanction electronic eavesdropping of attorney client conversations. Now this. We have lots of existing options that are available and work. The guy who bombed the WTC in 1993 was handled by the federal judiciary and likewise, the man who planned to start Seattle and San Francisco's New Year 2000 off with even bigger bangs, was successfly tried and convicted within the judicial ststem. I know I beed to refer to each by name but it is late and I must sleep now.

240. AytchMan - 11/16/2001 3:24:12 AM

Abs--

I don't understand your first argument -- the point of any trial, civilian or otherwise, is to try alleged criminals. If we have already proven their guilt, we don't need a trial of any kind, all we need to do is pronounce sentence.

The fact that this type of tribunal bypasses the Congress and the Courts is an abuse

Don't understand this one either. A military tribunal (MT) for US citizen soldiers also bypasses Congress and the Courts. Is this an abuse?

This turns around our system of justice and the guarantees we have allowed for all "people."

It sounds as if you believe our current military justice system (for US citizens) is unjust. True?

241. Absensia - 11/16/2001 6:39:35 AM

Aycht,

This order creates a tribunal that is very different from a US Military Trial. (I've represented some clients in them, mostly captain's masts, however.)

First, our Military tribunals are created by Congress and were not created by a presidential order. Second, and most important, a military trial (US) has a right of appeal and review by the courts.

Next, the current military trials are not done in secrecy and do not allow for summarial execution if the person is found guilty.

All who are tried in the US are assumed innocent until proven guilty, even in military trials. This is not the case in the new "terrorist" system of justice. No set procedures, no set rules regarding evidence, etc. What do we have to hide, that is my question.

In the US military trials, the defendants are in the military and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this type of process, a process, I might add, that has long been established AND is subject to judical review.

I am not wild about the current military justice system (seems military justice is an oxymoron.) But in comparison to this new tribunal it looks outstanding. Here is a site that discusses it Would you want this type of 'justice' for yourself?

242. Khabees Khargosh - 11/16/2001 7:17:09 AM

"Terrorist Courts" are a norm in many dictatorships. Pakistan has seen them not only in almost every military rule but also under democratic governments. The latest example being the Special courts formed by Nawaz Sharif (the last PM). They were highly criticized and stirred up a lot of debate.
Later when Musharraf took over, Nawaz Sharif was tried in the same courts and under the same judges that were appointed by him and was convicted guilty of plotting The highjacking of the plane, Musharraf was in.

243. thoughtful - 11/16/2001 8:34:35 AM

Another door closes: read Richard Reeve in today's NY Times.

With a stroke of the pen on Nov. 1, President Bush stabbed history in the back and blocked Americans' right to know how presidents (and vice presidents) have made decisions. Executive Order 13223 ended more than 30 years of increasing openness in government.

244. CalGal - 11/16/2001 9:54:23 AM

Again, people, it's not like our military courts are some sort of kangaroo justice. The comparison to military trials in other countries just doesn't work--we are not talking about civilians, but about potential terrorists who have declared war.

I have problems with the implementation of it, but that's an entirely different issue and one that no one has meaningfully addressed in their rush to wail about it.

245. Rama - 11/16/2001 10:11:39 AM

This order creates a tribunal that is very different from a US Military Trial. (I've represented some clients in them, mostly captain's masts, however.)

It isn't really all that different. The personnel will be the same, and the procedural guidance will be the same. And if all you've done is captain's masts, you don't really know much about this.

First, our Military tribunals are created by Congress and were not created by a presidential order.

This isn't true.

Next, the current military trials are not done in secrecy

This is also not true. Trials pertaining to national security crimes by military personnel are, in fact, held in secret.

and do not allow for summarial execution if the person is found guilty.

We have had military courts that allowed summary execution. No great injustices have been experienced.

All who are tried in the US are assumed innocent until proven guilty, even in military trials. This is not the case in the new "terrorist" system of justice. No set procedures, no set rules regarding evidence, etc.

This is not true.

In the US military trials, the defendants are in the military and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this type of process, a process, I might add, that has long been established AND is subject to judical review.

This is complete bullshit. No GI I have ever met understood the military justice system until well after they were subject to it. Also, civilians also fall under the UCMJ in many circumstances, without realizing that is the case.

I am not wild about the current military justice system (seems military justice is an oxymoron.)

There's a moron here, all right.

246. jexster - 11/16/2001 10:31:24 AM

A growing chorus on the left and the right is accusing the Bush administration of ignoring civil liberties while leaving the courts and Congress out in the cold as it aggressively pursues the war on terrorism here and abroad.

Critics ranging from the solidly liberal People for the American Way Foundation to conservative Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.) are characterizing recently announced administration plans as ethnic profiling, power grabbing and overzealous law enforcement.

"Military tribunals, secret evidence, no numbers on how many people the government is detaining," said Jim Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute. "We're looking like a Third World country." The latest focus of the debate is an order signed by President Bush this week that empowers him to order military trials here and abroad for international terrorists and their collaborators.

But other complaints concern Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's decision to monitor conversations between lawyers and some clients in federal custody if Ashcroft believes it is necessary to thwart future terrorism; the plan to question 5,000 foreign nationals who recently entered the country; and the FBI's visits to hundreds of college campuses to check on the records of foreign students, mostly from Middle Eastern countries.WPost

247. alistairconnor - 11/16/2001 10:32:38 AM

It seems to me that this military tribunal thing is a replacement for extra-judicial killings in covert operations, which were the norm until they were banned some time ago (10 years ago? 20?)

The best defence of the new system is that it's better than the old one. And it can certainly be argued that the US needs some sort of officially sanctioned means of taking out its enemies quickly, and that it was severely handicapped by not having any such mechanism in between times.

But, slippery slope etc.

248. janjon - 11/16/2001 10:34:14 AM

An editorial in today's New York Times on this topic: A "Travesty of Justice" Indeed -This Has Not Been Very Carefully Thought Out, To Put It Mildly

Some excerpts:

"The temptation to employ extrajudicial proceedings to deal with Osama bin Laden and his henchmen is understandable. The horrific attacks of Sept. 11 give credence to the notion that these foreign terrorists are uniquely malevolent outlaws, undeserving of American constitutional protections. Military tribunals can act swiftly, anywhere, averting the security problems that a high-profile trial in New York or Washington could pose.

But by ruling that terrorists fall outside the norms of civilian and military justice, Mr. Bush has taken it upon himself to establish a prosecutorial channel that answers only to him. The decision is an insult to the exquisite balancing of executive, legislative and judicial powers that the framers incorporated into the Constitution. With the flick of a pen, in this case, Mr. Bush has essentially discarded the rulebook of American justice painstakingly assembled over the course of more than two centuries. In the place of fair trials and due process he has substituted a crude and unaccountable system that any dictator would admire."

249. janjon - 11/16/2001 10:35:48 AM

Almost as chilling, incidentally, and not to be overlooked, is the Executive Order granting the power to wiretap communications between an accused and his/her lawyer.

250. janjon - 11/16/2001 10:37:10 AM

I think this decision about wiretaps took the form of an Executive Order. Not sure, though.

251. CalGal - 11/16/2001 10:40:59 AM

Actually, I find the wiretaps far more problematic than the military tribunals. I thought it was Ashcroft who changed the law.

It seems to me that this military tribunal thing is a replacement for extra-judicial killings in covert operations, which were the norm until they were banned some time ago (10 years ago? 20?)

I don't believe they were ever banned, and really, that's just a silly thing to say anyway. If all a president wanted was the ability to kill people, you think he'd go to the waste and expense of military tribunals first?

252. LadyChaos - 11/16/2001 2:04:43 PM

Aside from the constitutional questions raised by military tribunals, my overarching concern is one of perceptions. Part of this war we find ourselves in should have, in part, an objective of demonstrating the strength of our democratic institutions to the lying propagandists in the Arab/Islamic world. Simply put, it is important for us to be able to show that we are indeed better than the Islamists.

If the perception takes hold that we are using military tribunals to "persecute" Muslims, far from the scrutiny of citizen juries and the media, it could spell another nail in the coffin of our credibility in the Arab world (which, I admit, could not get much worse than has been, these days).

Another grave concern I have is that the use of military tribunals will be extended to prosecute individuals with only tenuous connections to terrorism, or who have no connections to terrorism at all. I wouldn't be shocked if, for example, Ashcroft were to use this military tribunal forum to prosecute an alleged Colombian cocaine "kingpin," on the threadbare pretext that he had supplied money to FARC or some such organization.

As AC said, slippery slope and all that....

253. LadyChaos - 11/16/2001 2:14:20 PM

Btw, for anybody who thinks that conservatives are monolithically in favor of Ashcroft's latest power grab, they need look no further than this report, which features some rather scathing comments from Bob Barr and the CATO Institute, among others.

254. CalGal - 11/16/2001 2:15:45 PM

Simply put, it is important for us to be able to show that we are indeed better than the Islamists.

Oh, please. We are indeed better than them, and we could toss out all the aliens, illegal or otherwise, and still be better.

They are an irrational adversary. Therefore no consideration is to be given them in terms of determining valid solutions.

255. LadyChaos - 11/16/2001 2:17:04 PM

That report notes that the Bush decree apparently seeks to suspend habeas corpus for anybody detained under the decree. That would be very troubling, indeed.

256. janjon - 11/16/2001 2:19:16 PM

perception is indeed part of it. But, the ultimate chill to what the Administration has been proposing/condoning (the military tribunals, the wiretapping of communications between an accused and his/her attorney, the sustained detention of up to 1000 individuals, and so it goes) is that these measures strike at the heart of what America is supposed to stand for. We've been told incessantly that the reason the terrorists struck us is because they hate our values, what we stand for. This wasn't intended to mean our material prosperity and resources.

Someone, Ohio I believe, said that all of this is an insult to our systems and those who toil in them. Mild word. Our checks and balances and our system has been demonstrated to work quite admirably in "bringing to justice" those accused of recent terrorist acts (the WTC bombing, the Seattle/LA efforts).

It is very troubling to think of someone with the mind set of an Ashcroft being at the wheel with these powers. Can one imagine, though, what, say, a Nixon could have done with these powers?

I have no quarrel with the proposition that what we are facing probably calls for some refinements in our system, so as to make sure we protect our means (of investigation) and effect justice (say, possibly, just possibly, loosening our restrictions on the use of hearsay). But, this new schematic that has been presented to us goes far too far.

257. Absensia - 11/16/2001 2:42:14 PM

Rama, cite your sources, it seems you are in the minority here. I urge you, ify you haven't, to read the Executive Order, covering this.

Cal,and Janjon. the wiretap regulation, is a regulation, done by Ashcroft and the justice department. No way would it have been enacted as a federal regulation without Bush's approval. The next test of it will be, no doubt, in the courts.

258. janjon - 11/16/2001 2:48:37 PM

well, the military tribunals will end up being challenged in many particulars in the courts too.

it is the American way.

259. Absensia - 11/16/2001 4:17:40 PM

But, the law allows our current military tribunals to be challenged in the courts. This new terrorist tribunal expressly forbids it...the only course of appeal is to Bush. Not a comforting thought to me.
The Executive Order will no doubt be challenged in the courts, but considering the make up of our USSC, it may only be challenged once, on Bush's watch. Sigh.

260. janjon - 11/16/2001 4:43:19 PM

oh, I didn't mean that it is the results of the military tribunals that will go to courts - the concept per se will be tested.

could turn out being a classic clash among the three branches of government (you can bet that the Congress will put its two cents worth in - they have to be pissed beyond belief, as well as incredulous, at not having been even consulted, let alone involved.)

chutzpah - even in the current circumstances.

261. janjon - 11/16/2001 4:44:07 PM

well, it will be curious to see what Kennedy does on this one. Sandra, too.

262. Rama - 11/16/2001 4:45:54 PM

Rama, cite your sources, it seems you are in the minority here.

I read the order.

My previous posts were based upon my training and experience in the Army.

But here is a reasonable article on this issue, from prior to the issuance of the order.

263. Absensia - 11/16/2001 4:57:56 PM

Rama, we have used similar sources...obviously our interpretations are in disagreement. We shall see what the USSC may decide.

264. alistairconnor - 11/16/2001 6:17:14 PM

There is another issue, apart the subversive nature of this tribunal thing with respect to US democracy.

Concerning the rest of the world.

Belgium has some interesting legislation, in which anyone in the world can be brought to trial for crimes committed anywhere. Thus, the Israeli prime minister Sharon is being tried for the massacres at Sabra and Chatila.

The overall effect is rather comic, because it's Belgium.

When it's the US, which effectively has the power to go just about anywhere in the world and "arrest" someone, then it's more worrisome. And compounded by the limitations on due process.

Personally I'd be fairly confident that such a system would not be abused, because I think that the other organs of government will, one way or another, have a watching brief.

But it's impossible to sell to general European public opinion, let alone Arab or Muslim public opinion.

It certainly makes clear why the US closed the door on validating any international justice organism for terrorism.

265. CalGal - 11/16/2001 6:36:36 PM

So a European country has created a law that says "we can arrest anyone anywhere if they do anything we disapprove of."

With laws like that, who the hell are the Europeans to worry about the Americans?

266. ranheim - 11/17/2001 1:22:12 AM

I don't know who was behing this concept - Bush? Doubtful.

But, leave it to government-employed lawyers to screw things up!

267. Rama - 11/17/2001 7:46:14 AM

I don't know who was behing this concept.

A whole lot of people have been discussing it. It solves several problems that the available court systems present.

Do any of you remember the O.J. Simpson trial? If you liked that, you would love the O.J. Bin Laden trial.

268. arkymalarky - 11/17/2001 10:11:45 AM

With laws like that, who the hell are the Europeans to worry about the Americans?

The US has the capability of enforcement, whether or not they choose to exercise it. Belgium doesn't.

269. CalGal - 11/17/2001 10:39:32 AM

Ha, ha, ha!

So we pat Belgium on the head and say, "Look, aren't they cute!"

Thus we validate the maunderings of impotent hypocrites.

270. arkymalarky - 11/17/2001 10:54:37 AM

Oh bunk. Can we bring the shrieking a notch closer to reality? No one has patted anyone on the head. We ignore it becaues its not worth noting, or laugh at it, as Alistair said, because it is Belgium--that's a hair above Liechtenstein. We validate nothing. Or are you suggesting we demand they change their stupid law?

271. dusty - 11/17/2001 4:36:09 PM

Rama

Thanks for the link in Message # 262
It was extremely interesting and informative.

272. CalGal - 11/18/2001 3:05:34 AM

Arky,

European countries create laws that would be an egregious abuse of power if they had any to exert, and then scold and shake their fingers at us--the only extremity they have to shake since their castration some decades ago.

Your response to this absurdity is to simultaneously absolve them from responsibility for their actions while giving credence to their hypocritical pieties about our "abuses".

I have this odd notion that people have to earn respect. Continenental Europe hasn't quite reached the nadir of moral bankruptcy, but they approach it regularly.

273. jexster - 11/18/2001 10:51:21 AM

Representative Bob Barr, the conservative Georgia Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said on Friday, "These changes are so vast and fundamental, the House must hold hearings in the very near future, before we adjourn for the year." Such changes, without Congressional scrutiny, "will likely set precedents that will come back to haunt us terribly," he said.

274. Rama - 11/18/2001 11:43:25 AM

Jexter is a Bov Barr fan? Who'd athunk it?

275. arkymalarky - 11/18/2001 3:02:07 PM

Ashcroft's defense for trying suspected terrorists in military courts is that "foreign terrorists" don't deserve the protections of the Constitution. Leaving out the question of whether domestic terrorists necessarily do, his reasoning completely ignores the policy most annoying to his ilk about judicial systems in democratic governments--innocent until proven guilty.

276. wonkers2 - 11/18/2001 5:39:25 PM

If suspected terrorists are tried in military courts we may never know whether or not they were really guilty of terrorism. Military courts are notorious for coming up with incorrect guilty verdicts when trying their own soldiers. One can only imagine what the quality of the results will be for alleged foreign terrorists. [I speak with some experience--I spent several months when I was in the army reviewing loss of funds cases for the Chief of Finance. These are cases where servicemen are held responsible for losses of government funds or property and having the value of the funds or property deducted every month from their paychecks. The boards that found these poor guys responsible for the losses couldn't seem to grasp the concept in the Army regulations that required their action or lack of action to be the "proximate cause" of the loss. In case after case members of the military were held financially responsible for losses based on violations of the rules or other actions that had nothing to do with the actual loss. They were expected to "hang" somebody with the loss and hang 'em they did."]

This will be a horrible example for the rest of the world. I wonder if Ashcroft ever saw "Breaker Morandt?"

277. AuNaturel - 11/18/2001 8:31:20 PM

No Arky, Belgium is only a hair above Luxemburg. Lichtenstein is a hair above Fargo, North dakota.

278. CalGal - 11/18/2001 8:36:53 PM

I thought that was Luxembourg. I always get those tiny little L countries mixed up.

279. Rama - 11/19/2001 10:11:02 AM

If suspected terrorists are tried in military courts we may never know whether or not they were really guilty of terrorism. Military courts are notorious for coming up with incorrect guilty verdicts when trying their own soldiers.

There is no evidence that military courts are any worse at determining guilt than any other court.

One can only imagine what the quality of the results will be for alleged foreign terrorists.

Imagination does seem to be the basis of your opinions.

280. Rama - 11/19/2001 10:11:21 AM

[I speak with some experience--I spent several months when I was in the army reviewing loss of funds cases for the Chief of Finance. These are cases where servicemen are held responsible for losses of government funds or property and having the value of the funds or property deducted every month from their paychecks. The boards that found these poor guys responsible for the losses couldn't seem to grasp the concept in the Army regulations that required their action or lack of action to be the "proximate cause" of the loss. In case after case members of the military were held financially responsible for losses based on violations of the rules or other actions that had nothing to do with the actual loss. They were expected to "hang" somebody with the loss and hang 'em they did."]

You thus clearly demonstrate that you had no idea what you were reviewing. Even corporals and 2nd lieutenants understand that the military holds them absolutely responsible for the resources they have been assigned, and that proximate cause is not a relevant concept. Every commander knows that if anything goes wrong in his or her command, it is his or her responsibility. This is the only way a military organization can function successfully.

I am very glad your time in the military was limited. Incompetence like yours kills people.

This will be a horrible example for the rest of the world. I wonder if Ashcroft ever saw "Breaker Morandt?"

Yes, lets make policy based on movies.

281. CalGal - 11/19/2001 10:34:13 AM

I do wonder at the ready acceptance of this notion of our military courts as inadequate. Very odd.

Evan Thomas pointed out that Congress and the media will both be constantly scrutinizing the use of this new order.

282. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/19/2001 10:48:44 AM

This is a salient piece of writing, IMHO:

IN WAR, TRUTH AND HISTORY USUALLY DIE FIRST

283. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 11:29:33 AM

Sorry, Rama, the Army regulations provide in loss of funds cases in order for an individual to be held financially responsible his or her action must be found to be the proximate cause of the loss. The fact that the individual may have been derelict the week or month previous is not sufficient. You sound like a member of the boards that couldn't understand the concept and kept sending bad cases up to our appeals board to reverse.

[The Army didn't think I was incompetent. I got got high ratings, and they tried to talk me into signing on for a career.]

284. bubbaette - 11/19/2001 11:31:50 AM

But wait, it the Army brought charges against the party, they MUST be guilty, right?

285. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 11:32:04 AM

There is ample reason to believe that military courts are defective. They provide few of the safeguards of our civilian courts which are bad enough, witness all the people on death row who have been found to be innocent by DNA or other evidence.

286. CalGal - 11/19/2001 1:52:28 PM

Interesting take on civil liberties and journalism in less fortunate countries

On April 22 last year, a bomb exploded in a curio shop in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe in southern Africa. The apparent target was Geoff Nyarota, editor of the only daily newspaper in the country not controlled by the government of strongman Robert Mugabe.

Nyarota fortunately was not in his office just above the store, but nine months later the evildoers, as President Bush might call them, struck again, bombing and destroying the Daily News's printing press. Nyarota, whose newspaper nonetheless did not miss a day of publication, also has been threatened and jailed, most recently two weeks ago, as Mugabe has become ever more paranoid and repressive.

The improbably good-humored editor is in the United States this week to receive an International Press Freedom Award from the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Nyarota's fellow honorees are Mazen Dana, a steadfast cameraman for Reuters in the West Bank city of Hebron; Horacio Verbitsky, a longtime crusader for press freedom in Argentina; and Jiang Weiping, who has written about corruption among senior Communist officials in northeast China --most famously about a mayor who stole public funds to support his 29 mistresses. Jiang will not be at the dinner tomorrow to pick up his award; the Chinese have him in jail.

287. Rama - 11/19/2001 2:12:46 PM

Sorry, Rama, the Army regulations provide in loss of funds cases in order for an individual to be held financially responsible his or her action must be found to be the proximate cause of the loss. The fact that the individual may have been derelict the week or month previous is not sufficient. You sound like a member of the boards that couldn't understand the concept and kept sending bad cases up to our appeals board to reverse.

It is sad you served but still don't grasp how the military works. Regulations prescribe specific processes. The command structure assigns responsibility and resources. In the real world, there will always be conflicts between these two. To be an effective military, accomplish assigned missions and, in the long run, minimize loss of life, command must be privileged over process standardization. To mitigate short term impacts and inefficiencies, process safeguards are built in, such as your review process. You confuse those with defective command choices. That is a common error for bureaucrats, but incompetence in a soldier.

The Army didn't think I was incompetent. I got got high ratings, and they tried to talk me into signing on for a career.

Your incompetence is demonstrated by your posts, the only real evidence we have. Odd that you think the Army was good at evaluating you, but would be bad at evaluating bin Laden.

288. bubbaette - 11/19/2001 2:26:26 PM

Your incompetence is demonstrated by your posts, the only real evidence we have.

You're the one who felt the need to bring personal insults into this, Rama -- the mark of a weak argument in my opinion. We have no evidence at all about Wonkers' qualifications as far as the military is concerned but we do have evidence that you are quick to jump to personal insults and basically make assertions with little to back them up. We assume that it is sufficient in your view for the army to have charged someone for you to assume that they must be guilty. Sorry if we would not feel comfortable placing our civil liberties in your safekeeping.

289. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 3:03:43 PM

Thanks, bubbaette.

Actually what may be more important is the world's perception of the fairness of any trials of terrorists. And the world does not perceive military courts to be fair. Great care was taken after World War II in the Nuremberg trials to take the time to try the accused Nazi war criminals in a way that would be perceived by the world as fair, rather than line them up against the wall and shoot them as many advocated at the time. And as many are adovcating in the case of Al Qaida terrorists today. This would be a big mistake.

Military courts are designed primarily to deal with crimes and violations by members of the military, not civlians. There are certain regulations and requirements of military service, particularly on the battlefield, that are different from civilian criminal codes and which may be better adapted to enforcement by military tribunals. However, the military isn't always good at dealing with its own criminal problems. A good example of a gross miscarriage of justice was well documented in "The Execution of Private Slovik," an actual case where a dim-witted and confused private in the U.S. Army was sentenced to death by a military court and executed for desertion. I'm not sure, but I think "Breaker Morandt" was also based on an actual incident. The military is a very hierarchical organization with a tendency for officers at all levels to be influenced strongly by what they perceive to be the wishes of their superiors on up the line. Military courts lack most of the checks and balances found in our civilian system.

There is no reason for rushing to convict terrorists. We have plenty of time and money to deal with them through normal judicial processes.

290. bubbaette - 11/19/2001 3:19:20 PM

I think that we are sending the opposite message to the world that we need to be sending if we get into military tribunals adjudicating terrorism cases for non-civilians. I am concerned that Ashcroft is using this terrorist attack to undermine our system of checks and balances.

291. janjon - 11/19/2001 3:21:41 PM

checks and balances always take a beating in times of war. But, there does seem to be much knee-jerking going on in some of these new sweeping edicts.

292. bubbaette - 11/19/2001 3:23:47 PM

And this from "conservatives" who generally mistrust government. I guess they don't see the military as government, necessarily.

293. janjon - 11/19/2001 3:25:40 PM

and, of course, it is in times of war (and civil "scares") that we need our checks and balances the most.

294. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 5:15:15 PM

janjon--

Well, sort of. The following is conceptual and not necessarily related to the current situation.

In desparate times, we need those checks and balances in the background, ready to reassert themselves when things cool down. But, when the nation is under attack, some give may be required. The art, of course, is knowing when, where and how much to give. The absolute, presumptive requirement (to me) is that the former balance shall be restored. Note that this is not a defense of any specific action taken in the past, just a statement of intent.

295. ranheim - 11/19/2001 6:30:50 PM

I was an USAF Flight Surgeon for nine years.

I spent 2 1/2 years at our embassy in Moscow; so saw the Foreign Service portion of the State Dept. in action as well.

The military was horribly slow to change and very slow to act; and not very efficient. But, they acted as greased lightning compared to the Foreign Service. I also had the feeling that militarty personnel knew their jobs better than the Foreign Service personnel knew theirs.

From talking with other government employees at that time (1960s), it was my definite impression that - as bad as it was - the military was the most efficient portion of the federal government.

296. Cellar Door - 11/19/2001 6:32:03 PM

The Constitution is Unpatriotic.

297. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 7:34:36 PM

Efficiency isn't the main criterion for capital trials! Buchenwald was also quite efficient in disposing of unwanted humans.

298. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 7:40:21 PM

Good link. This is Ashcroft's doing. And it may be Bush's undoing before it's over. He didn't need to saddle himself with such a fascist moron.

299. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 8:10:21 PM

Another analogy to justice in military tribunals. They are about as good as "open door" policies for reviewing employee issues in big companies. Where I once worked the policy was popularly known as the "trap door." The reason that trap door policies usually don't work very well is the same one that military tribunals frequently don't work very well (if by well one means dispensing impartial justice): they both exist in fairly rigid hierarchical organizations and there are no independent, impartial checks and balances. Hierarchical organizations aren't very good at exposing their own warts or correcting themselves.

300. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 8:38:55 PM

wonkers2--

I've worked in companies where the stated open-door policy worked pretty well. The point (unrelated to the legitimacy of military trials) is that whether one favors or opposes the concept, it really devolves to intent. If the people running the show are competent and honorable, it'll work. If they are not, the concept will fail.

Consider the hotly-disputed Presidential election. Almost everyone had a strong opinion, some vehemently so. Yet no tanks rolled. It's because the vast majority of people on both sides are decent and honorable. The fabric of the country was strong enough to accept a hugely important decision peacefully. This occurs in a relative handful of places.

301. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 8:49:35 PM

I'd also argue that hierarchical orgs are very good at correcting themselves as long as their mission statement is clear and well-understood. Profit-making corporations are superb at identifying and correcting money-losing efforts. Political campaigns are superb at identifying and correcting vote-losing efforts. Some would say both are too good but that's a separate issue.

302. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 10:33:30 PM

Well, I beg to differ. Only the best hierarchical organizations are good at correcting themselves. Most of them cover up their problems, deny them or sweep them under the rug. The FBI is a good example. American auto companies covering up product defects are another. Pharmaceutical companies, ditto. The Pentagon is another. In fact, I find it hard to think of a good example to the contrary.

303. Rama - 11/20/2001 9:21:12 AM

and, of course, it is in times of war (and civil "scares") that we need our checks and balances the most.

That is completely wrong. Why would you think so?

304. Rama - 11/20/2001 9:28:44 AM

Actually what may be more important is the world's perception of the fairness of any trials of terrorists.

Virtually nobody in the world will change their opinion about the fairness of the trial based upon its structure.

And the world does not perceive military courts to be fair.

This is simply not true.

Military courts are designed primarily to deal with crimes and violations by members of the military, not civilians. There are certain regulations and requirements of military service, particularly on the battlefield, that are different from civilian criminal codes and which may be better adapted to enforcement by military tribunals.

And the people who would be tried by these tribunals are not civilians.

However, the military isn't always good at dealing with its own criminal problems.

This is true of all courts. There are examples of every court making mistakes.

There is no reason for rushing to convict terrorists. We have plenty of time and money to deal with them through normal judicial processes.

This is not true. The longer it takes to deal with the terrorists, the more people who will die.

305. Rama - 11/20/2001 9:31:59 AM

Toys

306. Rama - 11/20/2001 9:32:16 AM

Actually what may be more important is the world's perception of the fairness of any trials of terrorists.

Virtually nobody in the world will change their opinion about the fairness of the trial based upon its structure.

And the world does not perceive military courts to be fair.

This is simply not true.

Military courts are designed primarily to deal with crimes and violations by members of the military, not civilians. There are certain regulations and requirements of military service, particularly on the battlefield, that are different from civilian criminal codes and which may be better adapted to enforcement by military tribunals.

And the people who would be tried by these tribunals are not civilians.

However, the military isn't always good at dealing with its own criminal problems.

This is true of all courts. There are examples of every court making mistakes.

There is no reason for rushing to convict terrorists. We have plenty of time and money to deal with them through normal judicial processes.

This is not true. The longer it takes to deal with the terrorists, the more people who will die.

307. janjon - 11/20/2001 11:05:44 AM

Rama obviously thinks in black and white terms and with more than just certitude.

retired military officer?

308. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2001 11:49:46 AM

No, just another turkey for the season . . .

309. jexster - 11/20/2001 11:55:43 AM

Gee Wiz! That didn't even take any of you fancy doctorin!

But which one is the turkey...and speakin of foul...

"A Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on America-Islamic Relations, said yesterday that it had sent a letter to the Rev. Franklin Graham, to discuss remarks that Mr. Graham, an evangelist, made describing Islam as evil."

310. janjon - 11/20/2001 12:20:16 PM

Billy Graham, that hypocritical old bigot, has always symbolized to me the sanitized form (as opposed to the Falwell, Robertson, Bakker styles)of religious lunacy that afflicts some of our nation. Now, his son follows along, but an even dimmer bulb.

The J. Edgar Hoovers of religion.

311. CalGal - 11/20/2001 12:40:36 PM

The name CAIR sounds so.....reasonable, doesn't it?

312. jexster - 11/20/2001 4:39:11 PM

"The power President Bush is wielding today is truly breathtaking," said Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the libertarian Cato Institute. "A single individual is going to decide whether the war is expanded to Iraq. A single individual is going to decide how much privacy American citizens are going to retain."

On Heals of Coup, King Moron I Moves to Consolidate Power - WPost

313. Rama - 11/20/2001 5:11:03 PM

Rama obviously thinks in black and white terms and with more than just certitude.

No, but I post in black and white.

How does one think in "more than just certitude"?

retired military officer?

Former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent

314. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2001 5:13:57 PM

See--I just knew he's a turkey!

315. janjon - 11/20/2001 5:21:14 PM

"more than just certitude" as in -

with self-perceived moral certainty as well as just pigheadedness.

316. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 5:50:10 PM

The dualistic fallacy, as I recall.

317. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 5:52:18 PM

Maxwell S. Rama, what was your rank, by the way? Or is there such a thing as civilian counter-intelligence agent?

318. justears - 11/20/2001 6:25:11 PM

Caption for 308 photo above:

Turkey in the bush gobbles pecker.

319. arkymalarky - 11/20/2001 6:39:58 PM

Hahaha. That's very good, Justears.

320. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:33:53 PM

Bob Barr is ON THE LEFT on Crossfire!

321. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:34:24 PM

Are Bush's Gestapo Orders Legal?

322. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:37:54 PM

Singin Kumbaya with Bob Barr and the ACLU:

Earlier this week, President Bush issued an executive order that would allow special military tribunals to try non-citizens charged with terrorism. Just 12 days earlier, the Administration issued a new regulation that gives the government the power to listen in on any conversation between a suspect and his attorney. Both measures threaten to essentially eviscerate key constitutional protections.

The impact of these measures will be far-reaching. But even more disturbingly, they come on the heels of a Justice Department announcement of a new plan to seek "voluntary" interviews with at least 5,000 non-citizens who entered the United States in the last two years.

ACLU Action Alert - Bush Administration Plans Threaten Protections Guaranteed by the Constitution

323. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:41:39 PM

no trial by jury..no habeas corpus....SEIG HEIL!

324. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2001 8:08:15 PM

325. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 10:53:23 PM

That one frightened our intrepid agent Rama away!

326. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/20/2001 11:14:23 PM

LOL!

327. jexster - 11/20/2001 11:43:19 PM

On Crossfire 2nite some Wingnut was trying to argue the point, against Bob Barr of all people, that the unconsitutional usurpations of FDR (Jap internment case) and Abraham Lincoln were of the same historical and constitutional moment as our little game against the 11th century ragheads of Afghanistan...


No wonder Ace is no more.

328. jexster - 11/20/2001 11:51:08 PM

Hey guess what?

The right to a trial by jury, to counsel and to due process of law are expressly guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Bill of Rights.

329. Rama - 11/21/2001 10:37:37 AM

with self-perceived moral certainty as well as just pigheadedness.

I believe you are confusing the fact that I actually know a bit about the military and terrorist counter-action, with moral claims.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

330. Rama - 11/21/2001 10:40:17 AM

Maxwell S. Rama, what was your rank, by the way? Or is there such a thing as civilian counter-intelligence agent?

There are civilian, enlisted and warrant and commisioned CI agents. I was an NCO.

331. Rama - 11/21/2001 10:41:42 AM

That one frightened our intrepid agent Rama away!

This is a bulletin board, not a chat room.

332. wonkers2 - 11/21/2001 12:38:09 PM

"I actually know a bit about the military and terrorist counter-action."

But you apparently know little about civil liberties.

333. janjon - 11/21/2001 12:49:58 PM

you are being kind, wonkers.

actually, Rama has made it rather clear that in his view when it comes to wartime - all civil liberty bets are off.

I guess one then hopes that after the war is over, those then in power have the inclination and the power to "restore" things. And, as for those who were unjustly treated during the war (be it inadvertent or otherwise), well there is sometimes an acknowledgement down the road that things went amuck, sometimes even something that looks like an apology, and possibly even some form of monetary redress.

334. wonkers2 - 11/21/2001 9:33:12 PM

POLICE IN PORTLAND REJECT FBI REQUEST TO INTERVIEW MEN FROM MIDEAST
By Fox Butterfield, nyt

The Portland police will not cooperate with the FBI in its efforts to interview 5,ooo yhoung Middle Eastern men because such questioning violates state law, the department's acting police chief, Andrew Kirkland, said yesterday.

The decision is the first known case of a city's refusing to go along with the antiterrorism effort, which was announced last week by Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. [What goes around comes around.]

But top police officials in several other cities have also said that Ashcroft's plan raises troubling questions about racial profiling....

Acting Chief Kirkland said the U.S. Attorney's office asked the police to help with interviews of young Middle Eastern men in the city, sending a list of 200 names. He said I quickly decided not to cooperate.

"I didn't have to think too long about it," Mr. Kirkland said yesterday. We're not going to do it."

"The decision was not difficult" because Oregon law prohibits the local police from questioning immigrants when they are not suspected of any crime and the only issue under discussion is their foreign citizenship.....

Mr Kirkland, who is black, said his own background had also played a role in his decision. "I grew up in Detroit," he said, "and I hated the police with a passion. They were always stopping and bothering me. I figured the only way the police are going to win over the community is to stop this kind of activity, which is like racial profiling."...

In Ann Arbor MI, the police chief, Daniel Oates, also expressed reservations, saying he had not yet been contacted...Because the U of Mich has international students who might be on the list, Chief Oates said, "I have questions about the propriety of this."

How, he asked, "does someone end up on this list?"

335. Rama - 11/22/2001 11:30:36 AM

But you apparently know little about civil liberties.

Growing up in America, a land with ample civil liberties, and then living in other countries with fewer civil liberties, I am quite familiar with the topic.

However, as a rule of thumb, when I become the topic of posts, I assume that the other posters have run out of useful contributions to the listed thread topic.

336. wonkers2 - 11/22/2001 11:41:08 AM

Maxwell T. Rama, you were the one who began the ad hominem comments, not yours truly, nor anyone else.

337. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2001 11:42:04 AM

Rama- It wasn't you, it was your smug attitude and your jaundiced point of view that was topical (regardless of your comfortable thumb-sucking rule).

338. Rama - 11/22/2001 12:57:38 PM

Wonkhead,

Now I have to add to the list "things Wonker doesn't understand": the term "ad hominem".

339. Rama - 11/22/2001 12:59:13 PM

Wiz,

I didn't mean to imply I thought you ever had anything to contribute.

340. jexster - 11/22/2001 1:43:21 PM

I do Rama-lama-ding-dong

341. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/22/2001 5:56:47 PM

Rama Dear- Thanks sooo much.

FWIW, there may well be benefits and exigencies for militatry justice in this case, but your self-important pontificating and rudeness prevent any kind of acknowledgemnt of your view or respect for your background.

A thoughful person, with experience, just wouldn't make the kind of arrogant gaucherie, you've made here.

Empty Your Cup

The most famous Zen story concerns Nanin, a Japanese master. A university professor once visited him to inquire about Zen. Nanin served the man tea, pouring his visitor's cup full and continued pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could no longer restrain himself. "It is full to overflowing. No more will go in!" he said. Nanin replied, "Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

342. Rama - 11/23/2001 11:15:39 AM

A thoughful person, with experience, just wouldn't make the kind of arrogant gaucherie, you've made here.

This is an example of why I believe you have no contribution to make: You believe that my manner of communication is relevant to the truth of what I post. Although we all experience reality subjectively, reality is not subjective (in your Zen parable, this is where I drop a stone on your foot). What you call arrogant gaucherie (when they obviousely have a dexter orientation) have nothing to do with the validity of what I post. At the same time, it matters not a whit if wonkboy posts in the most charming manner, when he is posting ignorant nonsense.

You believe you are looking at the moon in the bucket. When I kick the bottom out of the bucket, you notice my foot, not the fact that the reflection is not the moon.

343. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/23/2001 12:18:13 PM

Rama- The Zen saying you are trying to paraphrase is: "When I point to the moon, you dwell on my finger."

Your conviction that you alone know the absolute truth and that you have the answers to age old problems is ludicrous.

And anyone who hasn't learned yet that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions, is the truly "ignorant" one--spewing "nonsense."

You're a typical zealot and you deserve the disdain your bluster incites.

344. jexster - 11/23/2001 12:33:21 PM

Ranheim...as I have said before, the Senior Warden of my parish was a USAF flight surgeon for 15 years and just retired from the reserve..so what?

She doesn't agree with much of what you have said...

Being a 3 generation Navy brat myself, I have noticed more than once the tendency of military types to lord their "expertise" in arguments that imply a "secret" understanding of things unaccessible to the "uninitiated" and I am here to tell ya that its a crock!

345. jexster - 11/23/2001 12:34:07 PM

and my aunt was in the CIA for 30 years operating out of Germany during the Cold War...so fuckin what!

346. wonkers2 - 11/23/2001 5:50:23 PM

Ranheim/Rama? Do they have more in common than their dogmatic, hierarchical military minds? Could they be on in the same person? I thought Ranheim was a physician while Rama portrays himself as a former Army intelligence agent and guru on the fairness of military courts. Somehow I get the feeling that fairness was not why Ashcroft recommended them to Bush. Speed, yes. Convenience, yes. Guaranteed results, yes. Fairness and due process, not a chance.

347. Rama - 11/23/2001 5:50:53 PM

Rama- The Zen saying you are trying to paraphrase is: "When I point to the moon, you dwell on my finger."

No Widget, I wasn't. I was referring to this famous story, known to any student of Zen:

The nun Chiyono studied for years, but was unable to find enlightenment. One night, she was carrying an old pail filled with water. As she was walking along, she was watching the full moon reflected in the pail of water. Suddenly, the bamboo strips that held the pail together broke, and the pail fell apart. The water rushed out; the moon's reflection disappeared--and Chiyono became enlightened. She wrote this verse:

This way and that way I tried to keep the pail together, hoping the weak bamboo would never break. Suddenly the bottom fell out. No more water; no more moon in the water-- emptiness in my hand.

You are still looking at my foot.


Your conviction that you alone know the absolute truth and that you have the answers to age old problems is ludicrous.

It seems very strange to me that you find the fact that I know something about a particular topic to be so very offensive.

And anyone who hasn't learned yet that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions,

This isn't generally true. But as a statement, it is amusingly ironic in juxtaposition with your expressed offense for claims of absolute truth.

You're a typical zealot

Zealots espouse a specific doctrine. I am curious what doctrine you perceive me as advocating.

and you deserve the disdain your bluster incites.

I see only the disdain of the adolescent for the adult.

348. Rama - 11/23/2001 5:55:16 PM

Being a 3 generation Navy brat myself

Being an Army brat and a veteran, I am familiar with the tendency of some brats to have an inferiority complex regarding people who have real world experience.

349. Rama - 11/23/2001 6:05:38 PM

Somehow I get the feeling that fairness was not why Ashcroft recommended them to Bush. Speed, yes. Convenience, yes. Guaranteed results, yes. Fairness and due process, not a chance.

If you are done talking about me and want to get back on topic, that's fine with me.

I agree that Ashcroft, and the many other people, who recommended military courts to try terrorism combatants didn't select them because they a more just than other courts. Why should they?

Guaranteed results, yes.

Nonsense. Military courts acquit just like other courts.

Fairness and due process, not a chance.

You have shown no basis for this claim. There is no reason to doubt the fairness of military courts. And I don't know due process you think applies to a captured combatant who engages in this sort of extra-legal aggression.

350. arkymalarky - 11/23/2001 7:18:31 PM

Fercryingoutloud. Get off your pedestal before you fall and hurt yourself.

And Wonk, Ranheim may be very opinionated, but he doesn't have the attitude.

The secrecy is the main problem, and it's my understanding the court process won't be the same as usual under military court trials of suspected foreign terrorists. I have to go back and read it again, though.

351. arkymalarky - 11/23/2001 7:45:20 PM

And I don't know due process you think applies to a captured combatant who engages in this sort of extra-legal aggression.

You and Ashcroft both seem to have a problem understanding what a suspect is.

352. arkymalarky - 11/23/2001 8:18:40 PM

Here it is:

The Law

353. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/23/2001 9:01:08 PM

347. Rama - 11/23/01 10:50:53 P

"No Widget, I wasn't. I was referring to this famous story, known to any student of Zen:

The nun Chiyono. . .

You are still looking at my foot."

Famous story? Now I know you don't know squat!

Actually Dipshit, I'm looking at your inability to see that your story has nothing to do with your own hubris and blind spot--my story was at least on point .

"It seems very strange to me that you find the fact that I know something about a particular topic to be so very offensive."

Knowledge and wisdom are not the same-- you've exhibited nothing but a smug familiarity with a few facts.

"This isn't generally true. But as a statement, it is amusingly ironic in juxtaposition with your expressed offense for claims of absolute truth. "

There you go again with your unique access to divine veracity!

"Zealots espouse a specific doctrine. I am curious what doctrine you perceive me as advocating."

Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek
Date: 1537

2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Doesn't say anything about a doctrine, Ding Dong?

You just think you and God know what the score is--and neither of you do!

"I see only the disdain of the adolescent for the adult."

I'm fifty, and I'm old enough to recognize a deluded jerk when I see one.

We should take this to the Inferno if you would debate my awareness rather than the fact that Bush INC. has never stopped taking liberties -- ours, that is.

354. Rama - 11/24/2001 12:09:13 AM

You and Ashcroft both seem to have a problem understanding what a suspect is.

I'm afraid you are confusing the legal fiction that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty with the reality of war against terrorists.

Are you really proposing that bin Laden is innocent of crimes against humanity?

355. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 1:10:09 AM

Among the general public, if not among counter-terrorism agents and the likes of Mullah Ashcroft, military tribunals are suspect. I'm sure that most of the time the results are acceptable. However, the U.S. interest requires not quick, acceptable justice but justice purer than Caesar's wife. If we have the evidence to convict the suspects in a regular court or a specially constructed international court, we should do so. Otherwise they are innocent under the law and must go free. That is the American way. Ashcroft's motive in proposing military tribunals is pretty clear--he wants to avoid the nuisance of having to develope sufficient evidence for indictments and for convictions by juries under United States law. If there is any other motivation I would like to know what it is.

356. arkymalarky - 11/24/2001 9:44:31 AM

Are you really proposing that bin Laden is innocent of crimes against humanity?


You don't see very far past your nose, do you? What makes you think any of this is about BL? Do you suppose he'll be anything but dead once he's found?

No one's talking about what happens to bin Ladin. Under the current system his fate is sealed, assuming he does live to be tried. There's no need of a military tribunal for him. The question is the future accused and the process and the broad powers of the government to proceed toward conviction in secrecy. Who cares about what happens to actual terrorists? They can line them up and unceremoniously eliminate them, afaic. Most of us are assuming that not everyone who comes under this new system will automatically be guilty and that the expansion of executive functions over the judicial in this particular order, especially the secrecy and the power handed to two individuals (president and AG) sets a dangerous precedent.

But then if you truly believe the protections of the accused provided in the BoR are a myth and irrelevant, then words are wasted on you.

357. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 9:45:19 AM

SPAIN SETS HURDLE FOR EXTRADITIONS
Tells U.S. That Terror Suspects Must Receive Civilian Trials
by Sam Dillon with Donald G. McNeil, Jr.

Madrid, Nov 23--Spain will not extradite the eight men it has charged with complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks unless the United States agrees that they would be tried by a civilian court and not by the military tribunals envisioned by President Bush, Spanish officials said today.

The officials said the U.S. was informed this week of the Spanish stance, and several experts predicted today that other countries in the 15-nation EU would balk at handing prisoners over to the Americans without similar guarantees....

"Military trials would be the worst of all possible worlds if you wanted to get people back from Europe," said Geoffrey Robertson, a British human rights lawyer.

A senior European Union official who asked not to be identified said he doubted that any of the 15 nations--all of which have renounced the death penalty and signed the European Convention on Human Rights--would agree to extradition that involved the possibility of a military trial.

In Washington, a senior law enforcement official described the developement today as "a setback."

[Oh well, it seemed like a good idea.]

358. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:08:52 AM

Frank Rich and Anothony Lewis have excellent op-eds in today's NYT.

Lewis: The trials by military commission would lack what most Americans would regard as essentials of fairness:

--Military officers, who are dependent on their superiors for promotion, would act as judge and jury.

--A two-thirds vote of commission members present at the time would be sufficient to convict--and to impose any sentence.

--The defendant could be barred on security grounds, from seeing the evidence against him.

--The defendant could not appeal to "any court of the U.S. or any state."

--The trials could be held in secret.

What conficence could the world have in the justice of such a proceeding? Such confidence is crucial. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, in open court before an international tribuanl, had a profound long-term effect in bringing Germans back to democracy and humanity.

359. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:09:12 AM

You're a typical zealot and you deserve the disdain your bluster incites.

Ahut...ahut...ahahaha!!!!

Ahahahaaaaaaa....

Hooooo...hooo...heeeeee.....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...ahaaaaa...

OOOOOOhhh...ooooohhhhh...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!


Oh, my achin' side!

(Boy that was rich!)

360. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:11:03 AM

You found a kindred spirit. Rama-dong needs all the help he can get!

361. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:14:52 AM

From you two?

PPPPPFFFFftttt.

I see you're still quoting that idiot Frank Rich, btw.

362. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:22:46 AM

Why don't you read it? You might learn something.

363. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:27:06 AM

As I predicted when he was nominated, Ashcroft is getting Bush into needless trouble.

364. Cellar Door - 11/24/2001 10:27:53 AM

365. Cellar Door - 11/24/2001 10:28:44 AM

Our Criminal Attorney General

366. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:35:38 AM

"Trouble"?

What trouble?

367. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:36:27 AM

Thanks, Cellar. Rich has Ashcroft's number. He's a truly malevolent person.

368. Rama - 11/24/2001 11:39:17 AM

Among the general public, if not among counter-terrorism agents and the likes of Mullah Ashcroft, military tribunals are suspect.

I just do not believe this is true. In liberal circles, where everything military is suspect, this is true. But liberal circles are getting smaller all of the time. The general public sees military courts as the type where Colin Powell would be the judge.

However, the U.S. interest requires not quick, acceptable justice but justice purer than Caesar's wife.

While that would be nifty, it is also impossible. Those who hate the West do nott see any distinction between the Hague and the Pentagon. And why should they?

If we have the evidence to convict the suspects in a regular court or a specially constructed international court, we should do so..

Otherwise they are innocent under the law and must go free.

You keep ducking the question: Innocent under what law? The crimes of these terrorists are not violations of U.S. legislation; they are crimes against humanity, like piracy. The Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction (we would not actually have a trial if we really thought they were innocent). As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case, I have seen that it is not at all the only way to achieve justice.

369. Rama - 11/24/2001 11:39:42 AM

That is the American way.

Spare me the jingoistic patriotism claims. This is an American way. America has used military courts this way before, and the Union is just fine, thanks.

Ashcroft's motive in proposing military tribunals is pretty clear--he wants to avoid the nuisance of having to develope sufficient evidence for indictments and for convictions by juries under United States law. If there is any other motivation I would like to know what it is.

I do not believe either of these statements is true. You have shown no basis for the first, and any number of legal scholars and political commentators documented other motives well before the Executive Order was issued.

370. Rama - 11/24/2001 11:47:33 AM

You don't see very far past your nose, do you? What makes you think any of this is about BL? Do you suppose he'll be anything but dead once he's found?

Why not answer my question? I used BL, because you have no idea who Ibrahim Mosool is.

Who cares about what happens to actual terrorists?

That is what this is all about.

But then if you truly believe the protections of the accused provided in the BoR are a myth and irrelevant, then words are wasted on you.

I have not posted anything that would suggest this. And I think it shows how lacking in substance your objections to this EO are, that you would have to make such a claim.

371. Rama - 11/24/2001 11:48:41 AM

SPAIN SETS HURDLE FOR EXTRADITIONS

This is a red herring. Spain will not extradite them to us because we have a death penalty. Which is fine, as I for one am perfectly willing to allow the Spanish to deal with the terrorists on their turf.

372. Cellar Door - 11/24/2001 11:48:52 AM

You don't believe it's true.

What DO you believe in?

Ashcroft believes he's been appointed by God!

373. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 11:50:07 AM

What were Ashcrofts "other motives?"

374. Rama - 11/24/2001 11:54:01 AM

What were Ashcrofts "other motives?"

To quickly convict terrorists without putting more people at risk. To use the evidence collected by US intelligence assets without compromising those assets. To hold trials that do do not provide a propoganda platform for mass murderers. To deter terrorist supporters from thinking Hey, if OJ can get away with it, so can I.

375. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 11:59:51 AM

Ashcroft has 700 or so "suspects" in jail and no indictments. Do you think his apparent difficulty in coming up with credible evidence may have had something to do with his proposal for using military courts? Secret military trials aren't consistent with our broader, long term objectives in dealing with terrorism. Using them would be very short sighted. Military courts are suspect in the eyes of most of the civilized world, including all the countries of the European Union, not to speak of the third world.

376. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 12:05:58 PM

If your only tool is hammer, every problem will look like a nail.

377. Rama - 11/24/2001 12:22:12 PM

Do you think his apparent difficulty in coming up with credible evidence may have had something to do with his proposal for using military courts?

No. Do you have any objective reason to believe it does?

Military courts are suspect in the eyes of most of the civilized world, including all the countries of the European Union, not to speak of the third world.

As many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union use military courts, I find this difficult to believe. And the third world finds all first world courts suspect.

378. ronski - 11/24/2001 12:42:41 PM

I am surprised people are still comparing military tribunals to Nuremburg, when there is so little similarity between the two.

Can anyone imagine a Nuremburg-style trial before the war in Europe was won, before Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally?

In today's war, the hostilities have only just begun.

379. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 12:44:50 PM

Do you think his apparent difficulty in coming up with credible evidence may have had something to do with his proposal for using military courts?

No. Do you have any objective reason to believe it does?

How about convenience combined with zeal and Ascroft's track record to pursue his goals without concern for anything other than his Christian values?

380. ronski - 11/24/2001 12:49:22 PM

I don't think that little evidence would hold up even in a military tribunal.

381. jexster - 11/24/2001 1:33:50 PM

Slobo's killed more people and is getting full due process...go figger

382. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 3:37:56 PM

This looks like a job for Fred Ashcroft . . .

383. RickNelson - 11/24/2001 3:40:27 PM

Hahahahahahahahahahaha Roflmao!

384. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 3:48:50 PM

I live for that kind of response--thanks Rick!

385. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:01:26 PM

Wiz of Nonsense

What on earth does that have to do with the thread topic?

I'm seriously thinking about moving off-topic posts.

386. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 4:05:17 PM

Which, dusty?--the image or post 384?

387. arkymalarky - 11/24/2001 4:17:12 PM

Rama,

There are a number of sought-after al Qaida members still at large and I am all for bringing them to justice, even under wartime policies, but the law doesn't extend to just this group or just this conflict. Why don't you defend the specific law and its value over the long term instead of making broad swipes?

You said yourself that the idea of innocent until proven guilty was a legal fiction. That I determined from that and your other posts that the 4th through 8th amendments aren't at the top of your priority list is understandable.

Your arguments in defense of this particular law have been non-existent, and your defense of military courts in general hasn't been very specific.

388. Absensia - 11/24/2001 4:19:24 PM

I think it is on topic. Ashcroft is a frightening person, IMO, and does act like a caveman, with regard to the US Consitution.

389. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:23:43 PM

Absensia

A post explaining why one should be afraid of Ashcroft would be on-topic. Saying that he is a caveman without explaining what that means (what does it mean?) would be void of intellectual content, but borderline.

390. Absensia - 11/24/2001 4:29:58 PM

Okay, Dusty. I thought we had talked a lot about why Ashcroft is scary, and about this new Terrorist Act, so I looked at the image as part of the discussion and rather good satire summing up what many of us think of him. (It may be more discussions of the Terrorist Act" were in the A o A thread.

But it is your call.

391. arkymalarky - 11/24/2001 4:33:24 PM

And Rama, I don't recognize the name you threw out. I do not recognize "Mosool" and couldn't find it in Google or CNN or several other sites I where I did a search. Enlighten me.

392. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 4:34:02 PM

Baloney to that and to your "intellectual content" pretensions.

A caveman hanging out by a mailbox speaks volumes about Ashcroft's failure to achieve a positive result in spite of his draconian methods.

Nor is RickNelson a lightweight with words and he seemed to get it.

Thanks for the support, Abs!

393. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 4:38:12 PM

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."


Benjamin Franklin

How quickly we forget!

394. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:39:39 PM

Absensia
I'm not disputing that there has been discussion of Ashcroft's scare quotient. I wouldn't even dispute that reasonable people could conclude he is scary.

I do dispute that showing him in a Fred Flintstone costume constitutes political commentary.

Do you consider Fred Flintstone scary?
If so, this is too weird for me, and I drop out.
Do you think the intention was, not to portray him as a lovable cartoon character, but as a caveman? If so, it failed on two counts - Fred is viewed primarily as a cartoon, not as a caveman. Second, I'll ask again, what on earth does a caveman have to do with a view of Constitutional rights?
And, if by some miracle, you can answer the second question, do you think that was the point of the image?

Finally, it isn't simply that lame image. It is lame image after lame image after lame image, almost never making a cogent point. It is the cumulative idiocy that is taking a toll. And my dilemma is whether to exercise a light hand, because I think thread hosts should exercise a light hand, or to say that someone, sometime, ought to speak out against mind-numbing idiocy, and it is time to do it when I have the tools to back it up.

395. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:42:12 PM

TheWizardOfWhimsy

How quickly we forget!

Who on earth has forgotten? Try reading Message # 1

396. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 4:43:34 PM

Then you should "do it," dopey and imitate your hero, Ashcroft's "light touch!"

397. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 4:45:50 PM

Where'd you think I got the quote, Dopey?

398. Absensia - 11/24/2001 4:54:49 PM

Dusty,
Here's what I got from it:
Fred is a known caveman so one can identify "caveman." Another word for caveman is troglodyte. I consider Ashcroft to be a troglodyte in his beliefs and actions.

Next, there was no Constitution in troglodyte days, and Ashcroft acts as if there is none, IMO.

The empty mail box reminded me of the fact that of over 5000 (according to the NYT article) people he has rounded up on "tips," none have been charged.

I don't consider this image "lame." I found it amusing and also to the point.

I understand that you are frustrated about all the images, as you say. I guess that's something you and arky should discuss, maybe?

Finally:

And, if by some miracle, you can answer the second question, do you think that was the point of the image?

I may not be one of the great intellects here, but I am not stupid, dusty.

399. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:54:50 PM

TheWizardOfWhimsy
Sorry, I gave you credit for knowing it. I thought all educated people knew it. My mistake.

A challenge—type some original words about civil liberties. or even an on-topic graphic, if words are too tough. I bet you can do it.

400. dusty - 11/24/2001 4:56:36 PM

Toys

401. Absensia - 11/24/2001 4:58:29 PM

Uh oh, didn't think I had any toys...obviously I did...and even checked first...but now I know what I did. Maybe I am a dolt.

402. judithathome - 11/24/2001 4:58:39 PM

Dusty, political cartoonists have a long history of getting their points across...Hogarth managed to skewer a few pompous asses and so did Nast, to name but two.

403. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:00:03 PM

Sorry about that dusty. I was about to mention that I'd rather see some pics, from either side, than the seemingly endless quotes, going on and on, when a cite and a summary would, for me, work best.

404. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:04:26 PM

Dopey- stuff your predilection for words--condensing thoughts into images on cave walls was around long before any alphabet.

A counter-challenge: let's see you come up with an original image regarding Ashcroft -- I bet you can't do it!

405. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:05:23 PM

When it's a political cartoon, not everyone will like it or think it is clever or even fair. I always have hated newspapers that would only run cartoons from artists who were of the same political persuasion.

It seems you are imposing "your" view of what is intellectually correct here. (I won't use italics and quote you...look what happened before.)

406. dusty - 11/24/2001 5:06:57 PM

Absensia

Another word for caveman is troglodyte. I consider Ashcroft to be a troglodyte in his beliefs and actions.

What does that mean?

The empty mail box reminded me of the fact that of over 5000 (according to the NYT article) people he has rounded up on "tips," none have been charged.

First, according to the NYT, "Over all, more than 1,200 people have been detained as part of the sweeping investigation,". Where do you get "over 5000"?
Second, what does an empty mailbox have to do with not being charged? I confess to being too literal at times, so perhaps there is a connection, but I don't see it. Care to illuminate me?

I may not be one of the great intellects here, but I am not stupid, dusty.

I'm hardly calling you stupid. In fact, I'm noting that I don't get it, so i may be the stupid one. You seem to "get it" so I'm asking you to share. You really think that viewers of his image concluded that Ashcroft was rounding up people and not charging them with a crime based upon a mailbox and a Fred Flintstone outfit? Indulge me please—show me the linkage.

Did anyone else think it was a commentary about people detain without charges?

407. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:08:01 PM

Thanks Judith, but he'll just say my stuff isn't up top Hogath or Nast's standards.

The cyber-cave artist is just as vulnerable to a dope with a club!

408. dusty - 11/24/2001 5:12:11 PM

For a profile of some of the people detained, some of whom have been released, some of whom are still in detention:
NYT

409. Khabees Khargosh - 11/24/2001 5:17:04 PM

Well!!
I didn't know about the detainees and whether anyone of them was charged or not so I didn't see it at first. But NOW I do.

410. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:17:34 PM

Dusty, here is a link to for trogloyte:
Caveman

411. dusty - 11/24/2001 5:18:07 PM

judithathome

Dusty, political cartoonists have a long history of getting their points across...Hogarth managed to skewer a few pompous asses and so did Nast, to name but two.

I love political cartoons. I saw an early Nash one in Harpers Ferry yesterday.

A well-done political cartoon makes an effective point with few, if any words.
A crappy cartoon says nothing other than "I dislike this person so I can going to make a silly picture with this person in it." It is as much political commentary as drawing a beard on a woman in a Clairol ad. Something most of us moved beyond in third grade. Or earlier.

412. dusty - 11/24/2001 5:22:13 PM

And, lest someone think I only approve of cartoons which present a particular point of view—here is one that makes a point effectively, even though it makes me cringe:

413. ronski - 11/24/2001 5:22:25 PM

jexster,

Actually, Slobo killed fewer people in Kosovo than died in the WTC attacks, or nearly the same, about 3,000. And many of the Kosovars so dispatched were armed rebels, as sympathetic as one might be to their cause, whereas the al Qaeda terrorists' victims are civilians.

And Milosevic and his clique are utterly out of power, as were the Nazis when Nuremburg was convened, whereas the terrorists continue to threaten us and will do so for a long time.

But continue to ignore these distinctions if you like.

414. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:23:28 PM

" . . .In fact, I'm noting that I don't get it, so i may be the stupid one. You seem to "get it" so I'm asking you to share. You really think that viewers of his image concluded that Ashcroft was rounding up people and not charging them with a crime based upon a mailbox and a Fred Flintstone outfit? Indulge me please—show me the linkage."

" . . .As far as anthrax terrorism goes, evidence like the lethal letter to Senator Patrick Leahy increasingly suggests that the culprit is not a Muslim or Israeli immigrant but, as Mr. Ashcroft's fellow cabinet member Tommy Thompson put it this week, "a disgruntled American" piggybacking on Islamic terrorism. The obvious suspects include those on the Timothy McVeighesque fringes of the Second Amendment cult, who proudly trade in germ war "cookbooks" at gun shows, and those in the anti-abortion terrorist movement, who have a history of wielding anthrax scares as well as explosives in pursuit of their cause. [Frank Rich]

" . . .In recent years conservatives have given striking support to civil liberty. So it was sad to find some conservative voices enlisting behind the Bush order. Terrorists deserve no better, they argued. But of course the question to be decided at a trial — a fair trial — is whether they are terrorists.

. . .This week President Bush renamed the Justice Department building for Robert F. Kennedy. It was a gracious ceremony, but there was an implicit suggestion that because of his toughness on crime Mr. Kennedy would have supported the Bush military tribunals. To the contrary, Robert Kennedy's years as attorney general were marked by his growing understanding that, if this country is true to itself, there can be no shortcuts to justice. [Anthony Lewis]

415. dusty - 11/24/2001 5:24:16 PM

Here's one a bit more on-topic:

416. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:27:00 PM

Next, you are right, the numbers aren't that high. I remembered it incorrectly when I read the Rich piece. It's more like 1200 arrests

As far as how or why I saw it (the empty mail box) is not relevant. It is what I thought. I don't think political cartoons are interpreted by majority vote. Wiz may have meant something else entirely.

Wiz got his point across, IMO, and I find explaining political cartoons as difficult as trying to discuss a Jackson Pollack painting.

417. ronski - 11/24/2001 5:28:04 PM

As if RFK had ever been confronted with a hideous terrorist threat on our shores. It's impossible to say with any certainty how he would have reacted, but I suspect he would have done something along the lines Ashcroft has. He was one tough sombitch at times.

418. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:29:58 PM

Actually, dusty, I don't think it's off topic at all. It's all too true, I fear.

419. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:30:03 PM

Woof woof, dusty -- now let's see your "original" image.

You're either with us, or you have no security clearance!!!

421. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:39:08 PM

Why can't I see Ab's #420 post?

422. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:39:15 PM

#420 was a mis-hit by me.

423. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 5:40:39 PM

Thanks -- where's your security clearance?

424. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 5:41:51 PM

And RFK would have been wrong, just as Ashcroft is, but probably not as wrong.

425. joezan - 11/24/2001 5:42:55 PM

FWIW, I don't see the problem with WoW's cartoon.

Yes - it was stupid, but a welcome change, imo, from his usual non-stop juvenile agitprop.

Besides - it gives the retards something to entertain themselves with while the rest of us discuss.

426. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:43:38 PM

My security clearance is so high, I can't show you.

Wonks, my feeling exactly. RFK went after "known" criminals. I don't think he would have just rounded up the "foreigners" and in so doing, stepped on citizen's rights. And, I don't think he'd do this military tribunal number.

427. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:44:45 PM

Mmmwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaah, Joey! I just love it when you talk "rough."

428. joezan - 11/24/2001 5:45:40 PM

RFK went after "known" criminals.

WHAT!

My God - tell me you were being facetious, Abs!

429. Absensia - 11/24/2001 5:48:10 PM

Joe, Merriman-Websters defines "discussion" as: 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate.

Joe, it was only after RFK's death that it was decided by Congress and courts that the RICCO legislation went beyond the mob.

430. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 5:53:38 PM

Dusty, deleting the Wiz's caveman cartoon would violate his civil liberties and those of his many fans in the Mote. Please don't go there. That would be self-anathematization.

431. joezan - 11/24/2001 5:58:22 PM

I'm not talking about RICO (although it gives Ashcroft plenty of precedent).

All one needed to be was Italian and a known associate - whether that be the barber, girlfriend, son, daughter, whatever - of a "known" mafioso to warrant suspicion and/or incarceration in the RFK DOJ.

Unless you're going to try to say that every one locked up in RFK's mob inquiries was formally charged?

432. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 6:00:30 PM

Gee--thanks Joe????

" Wiz of Nonsense / lame image after lame image after lame image / cumulative idiocy / mind-numbing idiocy "

Surely these are the fair-minded and impartial postings of a good host?

433. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 6:08:47 PM

Now that I think of it, I really should retire my Wacom Tablet --I can't overpaint enough to compete with reality!

434. Absensia - 11/24/2001 6:12:28 PM

Joe, one of the nastiest things we have is the "material witness" routine that prosecutors can use. It has been used by democrats and republicans. There is so much room for abuse.

Sorry for the extra "c" in RICO. But these days you don't need to be Italian.

And....here we're not talking about "known" associates of terrorists. Rather any male from the ME or Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.

435. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 6:13:14 PM

Representative Saxby Chambliss: "Arrest every Muslim that crosses the Georgia state line." Spoken like a true Georgia GOP redneck.

436. joezan - 11/24/2001 6:13:20 PM

Oh - and God forbid you should be an Italian here on an expired passport!

437. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 6:17:11 PM

Wonks- Gee thanks, but now you've screwed up my chance to be execrated by Torquemada2!!!

438. joezan - 11/24/2001 6:17:53 PM

Abs:

Um...

Any male of a certain age from ME or other Muslim countries is subject to questioning - voluntary questioning. I know I'm not telling you anything new here, so why try and make it sound like this is a repeat of the WWII Japanese-American travesty?

439. judithathome - 11/24/2001 6:19:41 PM

I heard today they are considering Guam as a place for POWS...small leap to Manzanar from there, possibly.

440. Absensia - 11/24/2001 6:27:36 PM

Voluntary? And if they say "no thanks," then what?
I'm not saying it's like the Japanese interment, yet.

441. joezan - 11/24/2001 6:43:30 PM

Abs:

The gov't is understandably close-lipped about the "then whats". But as I've understood it, the questions are along the line of: Has anyone you know disappeared shortly before or after 9-11... Has anyone you know seemed to have had prior information about terrorist acts, etc.

Not the kind of questions that lead to "then whats". Not the kind of questions, as a matter of fact, that anyone who has anything to hide is likely to answer truthfully anyway.

In fact, a prof at a local university recently said that he was extremely skeptical at first, but after talking to some of his students, he's convinced the gov't is simply looking for help from people who want to help. IOW, Abs, they know not every Muslim is anti-American.

442. Absensia - 11/24/2001 7:13:41 PM

Gee, ya think so? Well, some prof may feel that way, but I notice Oregon is refusing to partake in it, and other police agencies are just saying "no."

443. joezan - 11/24/2001 7:26:33 PM

Oh, yea - bring up Oregon.

I'll file that one away under Lefty State's Rights Arguments for use at a later date, Abs.

444. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 8:38:10 PM

If there's anything that grates me about Ayatollah Asscroft, it's the fact that he's willing to allow other people [read: nonbelivers in his Angry-God-Dogma, to suffer unspeakably agonizing deaths.

My mother suffered horribly from cancer during Reagan's musical-bed policies, doctors who cleaned up on every procedure under the sun and insurance companies who stack the statistical decks--of course we must allow God and his soldiers to have the final say--they always know what's right.

Joe, you are such a SuperDupe!

Hey, speaking of dupes where is Free2polishBush'shoes?

445. joezan - 11/24/2001 8:44:38 PM

Everyone knows US immigration policy is a joke, and has been for quite some time. Anyone for whom 9-11 was not a serious wake-up call to the need for immigration reform - as well as some heavy-handed interim measures - either:

a) Has their head up their ass.

b) Agrees with the perpetrators.

c) Realizes they no longer have any bitch against Bush's prosecution of the war, and so need to switch the focus to domestic bogeymen. Unfortunately for them, most Americans do not give a shit about a bunch of Muslims being questioned, or even detained.

446. joezan - 11/24/2001 8:47:39 PM

Geez, if only your mom could have held out till the Clinton admin, then....

uh, then...

Stick to the funny pictures, Wiz.

447. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 8:54:41 PM

Stick to your compassion, joe and may God grant you the opportunity to learn the truth the hard way!

448. dusty - 11/24/2001 9:02:19 PM

wonkers2

Dusty, deleting the Wiz's caveman cartoon would violate his civil liberties and those of his many fans in the Mote.

1. Nonsense. If you don't know what civil liberties are, please don't hesitate to ask. Not only would deleting his "cartoons" (in quotes, to avoid insulting cartoonists) not be a violation of civil liberties, deleting every one of his posts wouldn't constitute a violation. For that matter, banning him from this place permanently wouldn't be a violation. Which is not to say that any of those actions are under consideration; just pointing out how nonsensical your statement was.
   
2. Why the non sequitur? No one proposed deleting his "cartoon". Or was your post some type of weird performance art I failed to understand?
   
   

449. dusty - 11/24/2001 9:06:00 PM

TheWizardOfWhimsy

Surely these are the fair-minded and impartial postings of a good host?

Nothing in the thread host rules preclude me from holding or expressing strong opinions. In fact, I toned it down from how I really feel.

450. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 9:12:44 PM

In fact, I toned it down from how I really feel.

Just like Asscroft at his confirmation hearings!

451. joezan - 11/24/2001 9:14:24 PM

Wiz, you mistake my pointing out the sorry logic of your post for lack of compassion.

That, or you just expected me to fold up my argument and leave after your post about your mother.

Tell you what: show me how your mom's fate (for which you do indeed have my sympathy) would have been different under any other administration since, and I'll take it back.

452. dusty - 11/24/2001 9:24:00 PM

And, if you get a chance, tell us how it relates to civil liberties.

453. ronski - 11/24/2001 9:52:31 PM

Ashcroft is no different from other attorneys general, who have been eager to use legal means to effect political ends.

His willingness to sacfricice ill people to religious correctness (hencefeorth, "RC") is indeed reprehensible, and a serious reminder to people why voting GOP often sucks, Big Time.

But his doggedness in trying to save places like the Peoples Republic of the West Side of Manhattan from absolute incineration and worse remains a redeeming, if unappreciated, quality.

454. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/24/2001 10:27:30 PM

Joe- You and dusty lack imagination -- the biggest problem with the conservative mindset, imo.

People who sacrifice others' liberties for their own principles are sorcerors' apprentices -- maybe well intentioned, but it's those who follow who are forced to clean up the buckets of blood and suffering in the wake of these McCarthyite mullahs.

I know this won't parse in your black&white either/or mindsets--but frankly I don't even care.

The fact that my images irritate you is its own reward!

455. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:51:32 PM

You flatter yourself, Wiz.

456. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/25/2001 12:44:21 AM

". . .With supreme ambivalence, we are embarking on the Ashcroft era in American justice. The Economist writes that the attorney general's assault on evil has "a Cromwellian feel," noting dryly: "England's Lord Protector also disapproved of drinking, dancing and smoking."

The evangelical barbershop singer, whose nomination was opposed by every liberal special interest, has now become the big man in town.

It's weird what tricks fate plays. The great hope of the Christian right who was toppled by a dead man and his widow has re-emerged as a colossus bestriding the country.

A true sectarian in religion and politics, who said at Bob JonesUniversity that in America "we have no king but Jesus," will leave ahuge mark on the way Americans live their lives.

Mr. Ashcroft's contentious nomination fight was not over whetherhe had a fine legal mind. Senators fought over whether or not he was too riddled by prejudice and narrowness to serve, as they examined his opposition to a black judicial nominee, a gay ambassadorial nominee, abortion rights and his odd defense of slaveowners and Confederate generals. " [Mo Dowd, NYT]

457. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 1:13:39 AM

Keep it up Dusty and you and joezan will be the only ones left.

458. joezan - 11/25/2001 7:34:41 AM

....and we'll still kick all your asses.

459. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 10:15:35 AM

LEARNING FROM ISRAEL AND ITS MISTAKES

460. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 10:22:19 AM

LEARNING FROM ISRAEL AND ITS MISTAKES by Tom Segev NYT op-ed 11-25
......
Human rights organizations advocating greater civil liberties in Israel frequently cite American principles of freedom, and indeed some civil liberties have been introduced in Israel as part of the country's gradual but steady process of Americanization. So it was disturbing to hear the recent debate in this country over the idea of using torture on terrorism suspects. The Israeli experience clearly shows that torture and other limitations on civil liberties have not made the country safer; they have made it more oppressive. We Israelis have also learned that curbs on civli liberties rarely turn out to be temporary, even if intended to be; they are all too easily introduced but very difficult to get rid of.

[Tom Segev is a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Ha'arets and the author of "One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under British Mandate.]

461. judithathome - 11/25/2001 10:22:31 AM

Unfortunately for them, most Americans do not give a shit about a bunch of Muslims being questioned, or even detained.

And they won't until it's them being detained and questioned and by then, it will be too late.

462. joezan - 11/25/2001 10:31:31 AM

Oh PUHLEEEESE...

463. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 10:43:35 AM

As usual your powers of reasoning and persuasion are downright dazzling.

464. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/25/2001 11:04:43 AM

....and we'll still kick all your asses."

ECCE TROGLODYTES INC. "Me have club--me boss!"

During the 1991 Gulf War, President Bush's father aptly summed it all up: `What we say goes.'... Not many Americans are aware of the adverse impact of U.S. foreign policy on millions of lives overseas because what happens over there never affected their lives back home. All that changed on Sept. 11."

465. dusty - 11/25/2001 11:31:01 AM

A question (or three) for those who have a clue about the law:

1. Is my understanding correct that one cannot simply pose a question of Constitutionality to the SC, one must lose a case and appeal it (eventually) to the SC?
   
2. Is it correct that one aspect of the military tribunals being discussed as the justice system for the detainees is the lack of an appeals process?
   
3. If #1 and #2 are both answered in the affirmative, don't we have a Catch-22?
   

466. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/25/2001 11:36:05 AM

By stacking the SC with Right-Wing Clowns . . .

467. Cellar Door - 11/25/2001 11:45:19 AM

Dubbya rewrites the Constitution.

468. Absensia - 11/25/2001 11:47:13 AM

#1 is generally correct. (see below)
#2 your premise here is generally correct.
However, there is another process besides appeal and that is asking the court to accept a petition for writ of habeas corpus (produce the body)wherein the petitioner claimed he is being held unlawfully; there are other writs as well that are available when the petitioner does not have the right of appeal, such as not appealling in the prescribed time, or challenges constitutionally of a law. The most common writ people hear about is writ of certiorari. This is a writ wherein one asks the court to review the proceedings of an inferior court or quasi judicial proceeding.

Consequently, there are ways for the terrorist law to be heard by the USSC if it wishes to hear it. Petitions for writs are just that, requests...and the court can refuse to hear the petition.

469. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2001 12:02:34 PM

Rama

The Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction (we would not actually have a trial if we really thought they were innocent). As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case,

Please state which NATO countries where "that is not the case". If you say "Turkey" I'll laugh my butt off.

As many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union use military courts, .

Please state which EU countries try civilians in military courts.

470. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2001 12:19:38 PM

Surely, it was a historical mistake by the US to let all those Italians in. No Arabs - no terrorists. No Italians - no mob.

471. Cellar Door - 11/25/2001 12:43:07 PM

Some "expendable" Italians

472. dusty - 11/25/2001 12:53:48 PM

Absensia

Thanks, I was solely thinking in terms of certiorari.

473. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2001 12:57:09 PM

See! Mobsters to the core of their black hearts.

474. Cellar Door - 11/25/2001 1:18:38 PM

We are the enemy.

475. Absensia - 11/25/2001 1:22:52 PM

Dusty, since it's a military tribunial, performing at least quasi judicial functions, a writ of cert. might be enough, but I think habeas corpus might be the better way to go.

And, as we all know, the fact the supreme court would accept the petion for writ and heard the case, doesn't mean the law would necessarily be reversed, considering the current makeup of the memebers of the court.

476. Cellar Door - 11/25/2001 1:38:38 PM

Boondocks

477. mgleason - 11/25/2001 1:41:09 PM

The 'innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction' is not an Anglo-Saxon invention, appearing in both the Code of Hammurabi as well as the Digest of Justinian, to mention just two precursors to English common law. The same principle is to be found in the European Convention on Human Rights, to which 41 nations are signatories.

478. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 1:48:30 PM

That is a cutting strip from 'Boondocks', Cellar. Thanks for posting the link, I'm going to paste it into the Attack thread.

479. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/25/2001 2:18:36 PM

480. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/25/2001 2:18:48 PM

481. Rama - 11/25/2001 2:30:39 PM

Please state which NATO countries where "that is not the case".

Those which base their law on the Napoleonic code. It is truly sad you don't know this.

If you say "Turkey" I'll laugh my butt off.

My experiece has been that Turks are more likely to give a person of color a fair shake than Scandanavians are.

Please state which EU countries try civilians in military courts.

The proposed court is intended to try combatants, not civilians.

482. Rama - 11/25/2001 2:33:13 PM

The 'innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction' is not an Anglo-Saxon invention, appearing in both the Code of Hammurabi as well as the Digest of Justinian, to mention just two precursors to English common law. The same principle is to be found in the European Convention on Human Rights, to which 41 nations are signatories.


I'm sure there is a point to this post.

483. judithathome - 11/25/2001 2:38:32 PM

I read it as a response to this:

The Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction (we would not actually have a trial if we really thought they were innocent). As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case,

484. PelleNilsson - 11/25/2001 4:24:23 PM

Rama

Certainly you should have learnt by now that around here one doesn't get respect and credibility by merely throwing around opinions about how things are.

You have stated that in the countries following the Code Napeleon the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not valid.

You have also stated that "My experiece has been that Turks are more likely to give a person of color a fair shake than Scandanavians are".

In the first case, please provide cites or links that substantiate your position.

In the second, please outline the nature of your experience and how it was acquired.

485. mgleason - 11/25/2001 4:40:53 PM

Pelle (paraphrase): In what member countries of NATO is 'innocent until proven guilty' not the law?

Rama: Those which base their law on the Napoleonic code. It is truly sad you don't know this.

You'd be well advised to visit the link I posted in the message which you apparently failed to comprehend. A little basic research would spare you the embarrassment of making claims which you cannot substantiate.

All signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights agree to abide by Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial; pay special attention to the second clause:

Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Again, take a look at the list of member nations, which includes France, home of the Code Napoléon, whose Parliament passed the 'presumption of innocence' bill in June of 2000, further reinforcing those protections.

486. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 4:50:30 PM

My conclusion:

Rama doesn't know squat.

I'd still like you to identify the man you named in a previous post, Ibrahim Mosool.

487. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 5:21:56 PM

Pelle

"Certainly you should have learnt by now that around here one doesn't get respect and credibility by merely throwing around opinions about how things are.You have stated that in the countries following the Code Napeleon the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not valid. You have also stated that "My experiece has been that Turks are more likely to give a person of color a fair shake than Scandanavians are" In the first case, please provide cites or links that substantiate your position. In the second, please outline the nature of your experience and how it was acquired."

This is sound advice and your requests of Rama are justified. Which reminds me. I am still waiting on your support for post no. 14381 in Attack on America.

Please provide the requested citation demonstrating that I ridiculed German, Japanese and Italian offers of help to the United States in its Afghanistan operation (in fact, I lauded same).

Otherwise, apologize and retract the statement.

At a minimum, if you continue to duck your responsibilities as a gentleman in this matter, refrain from what can only be considered hypocritical lecturing of others.

488. jexster - 11/25/2001 5:51:32 PM

s Pentagon officials begin designing military tribunals for suspected terrorists, they are considering the possibility of trials on ships at sea or on United States installations, like the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The proceedings promise to be swift and largely secret, with one military officer saying that the release of information might be limited to the barest facts, like the defendant's name and sentence. Transcripts of the proceedings, this officer said, could be kept from public view for years, perhaps decades.

U.S.A. Patriot Act? The Short Title Says It All

489. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 6:33:23 PM

Pelle, Rama is, what else, a former junior grade U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent.

490. mgleason - 11/25/2001 6:45:59 PM

NATO Member Countries, all members of the Council of Europe, with the exception of the US and Canada. I do wonder which NATO members eschew the presumption of innocence. Hint: check the Council's link to 'The main fundamental rights.'

491. Rama - 11/25/2001 9:16:36 PM

I read it as a response to this:

But it doesn't respond to what I posted.

I didn't post that the Anglo-Saxons invented the concept.

I didn't claim that the rule is still rare in Europe.

And I said nothing about recent events in European legislation.

492. Rama - 11/25/2001 9:23:52 PM

Certainly you should have learnt by now that around here one doesn't get respect and credibility by merely throwing around opinions about how things are.

I don't come here for respect or credibility. I get plenty of both in the real world. I come here to find out why people who disagree with me do so. When it is because they are ignorant, or believe things I know not to be true, my purpose is accomplished.

In the first case, please provide cites or links that substantiate your position.

I don't come here to teach.

In the second, please outline the nature of your experience and how it was acquired.

Or get you to evaluate my life experience.

493. Rama - 11/25/2001 9:27:22 PM

You'd be well advised to visit the link I posted in the message which you apparently failed to comprehend. A little basic research would spare you the embarrassment of making claims which you cannot substantiate.

You would be well advised to read what I posted, and dispute that, rather than whatever it is you think you are disputing.

Again, take a look at the list of member nations, which includes France, home of the Code Napoléon, whose Parliament passed the 'presumption of innocence' bill in June of 2000, further reinforcing those protections.

That, of course, makes my point, unless you are claiming there was no justice in France before the recent change in the law.

494. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 9:29:26 PM

Hahaha. Rama has spoken.

But is there a speck of content in 491 and 492? If so, I can't find it.

495. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 9:30:30 PM

and 493.

You still haven't answered my question, either.

496. Absensia - 11/25/2001 9:34:01 PM

Arky, in answer to your question, see post #486 above...snerk! ^5s!

497. mgleason - 11/25/2001 10:02:21 PM

This is what Rama posted:

The Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction (we would not actually have a trial if we really thought they were innocent). As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case

I demonstrated that the 'Anglo-Saxon world' is not at all 'unusual' in the presumption of innocence. I further demonstrated that all NATO members, with the exception of the US and Canada, are members of the Council of Europe, which means that these countries guarantee certain basic rights, among them the presumption of innocence.

France is a founding member of the Council (5/5/49). Rama, with continued reading comprehension problems, apparently feels that the word 'further' in the following statement somehow indicates that the presumption of innocence was unknown in France until last year.

Again, take a look at the list of member nations, which includes France, home of the Code Napoléon, whose Parliament passed the 'presumption of innocence' bill in June of 2000, further reinforcing those protections.

Please indicate which NATO members do NOT subscribe to the 'innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction,' per your previous assertion. To assist you, this link contains the ratification dates for all member nations, including two which joined this year. The last NATO member to join the Council did so in 1993.

As to this,

That, of course, makes my point, unless you are claiming there was no justice in France before the recent change in the law.

I shall be charitable and call it a non sequitur.

498. mgleason - 11/25/2001 10:06:21 PM

I don't come here to teach.

For this we are profoundly grateful.

499. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:11:23 PM

Nor does Rama come here to learn. Wonder why he does come here??

500. Rama - 11/25/2001 11:13:36 PM

I demonstrated that the 'Anglo-Saxon world' is not at all 'unusual' in the presumption of innocence.

No, you haven't. For most of the people who have lived throughout history, and for most of the people in the world today, if they appear in front of a judge, they bear the burden of proving their innocence.

I further demonstrated that all NATO members, with the exception of the US and Canada, are members of the Council of Europe, which means that these countries guarantee certain basic rights, among them the presumption of innocence.

I haven't disputed that.

France is a founding member of the Council (5/5/49). Rama, with continued reading comprehension problems, apparently feels that the word 'further' in the following statement somehow indicates that the presumption of innocence was unknown in France until last year.

Actually, it has nothing to do with your 'further'. It has to do with the fact that the French had to change their law to adopt the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Which fact I suspect you already know.

Please indicate which NATO members do NOT subscribe to the 'innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction,' per your previous assertion.

It was not my assertion that any NATO member continues to use the older, and more wide spread, rule. Why should I do research to support an argument I never made?

I shall be charitable and call it a non sequitur.

Craven, manipulative or stupid, perhaps, but not charitable.

501. mgleason - 11/25/2001 11:30:38 PM

I'm afraid the stupidity and cowardice is on your side. As for manipulation, you're too transparent.

Once more, with feeling:

Rama: The Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction (we would not actually have a trial if we really thought they were innocent). As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case

Pelle: Please state which NATO countries where "that is not the case".

Rama: Those which base their law on the Napoleonic code. It is truly sad you don't know this.

Now, after irrefutable proof of your error, you state that

It was not my assertion that any NATO member continues to use the older, and more wide spread, rule.

You're pathetic.

As to the 'unusual' nature of the alleged 'fiction,' as you designate the presumption of innocence, if the ancient nature of the concept, as illustrated by its Babylonian and Roman provenance, is not sufficient to convince you of your error, it is because you are wilfully ignorant, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. It might interest you to know that the concept is also present in the Torah. So much for its 'unusual[ness].'

502. mgleason - 11/25/2001 11:32:21 PM

Actually, it has nothing to do with your 'further'. It has to do with the fact that the French had to change their law to adopt the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Which fact I suspect you already know.

Unfortunately, that was never the issue. Bzzzzzt. Thanks for playing.

503. Snowowl - 11/25/2001 11:32:42 PM

Is this obfuscation by Rama an illustration that military intelligence is indeed an oxymoron?

504. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:34:10 PM

Just now on CNN Senator Leahy, the target of an anthrax letter, pointed out that at least twice a year our President finds him on the phone with another chief of state complaining about the secret military trial of a U.S. citizen. Americans are constantly worrying about the fairness of trials of American citizens accused of crimes in other countries. Obviously, subjecting foreign nationals to lynchings before American military tribunals won't help protect Americans accused of crimes in foreign lands.

506. Absensia - 11/25/2001 11:44:54 PM

Sorry, 505 was blank. I was about to post that I wondered if Rama really had been a flight surgeon. Then, upon further thought, decided his "warm and fuzzy" interactions have all the earmarks of a surgeon.

507. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:44:59 PM

Orrin Hatch and Leahy have "invited" Ayatollah Ashcroft to spend three hours with the Senate Judiciary Committee next Wednesday to explain why it's necessary for the FBI to eavesdrop on private conversations between individuals who are detained or accused and their attorneys, guidlines for military tribunals, interrogation of foreign national residents and students, etc, etc. GOP Sen. Shelby almost apologetically attempted to defend Ashcroft, but said he had great reservations about eavesdropping on conversations between the accused and their attorneys. He said that as a former practicing attorney for 16 years, he believed the right of private conversations between prisoners and their attorneys was worth preserving. It was mentioned that even GOP Sen "Mad Dog" Bob Barr has expressed reservations about the post-Sept 11 depredations of Ashcroft. If Bush were smart he would find a new Attorney General before Ashcroft embarrasses him ever further.

508. mgleason - 11/25/2001 11:47:45 PM

Snow,

I expect to be treated to a discourse on what the meaning of 'is' is.

509. mgleason - 11/25/2001 11:50:35 PM

Wonkers,

I believe Barr called the scope of the Executive Order 'breathtaking.'

510. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:53:14 PM

[n.b., the substance of the above post is accurate, but portions of it contain mild hyperbole, e.g., the appelation "Mad Dog" Barr is not my own, not that of Sen. Leahy or Shelby, or Tim "Smiley" Russert.]

511. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:54:53 PM

erratum: the appelation "Mad Dog" Barr IS my own..."

512. Rama - 11/26/2001 12:00:48 AM

Unfortunately, that was never the issue. Bzzzzzt. Thanks for playing.

The issue appears to be that you misread what I posted and can't deal with it.

But that doesn't change reality.

513. mgleason - 11/26/2001 12:02:22 AM

Oh, yes; bleat away. The issue is that you can't admit your error. Again, how pathetic.

514. Snowowl - 11/26/2001 12:18:29 AM

maria,

I'm sure that like Humpty Dumpty, when Rama uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean.

515. wonkers2 - 11/26/2001 12:26:36 AM

Rama, did you catch the story on TV about the Special Forces sergeant whose name escapes me who spent 16 years in the U.S. Army, part of the time as an instructor at Ft. Bragg and then took a leave of absence to fight with Taliban against the Russians, came back and then disappeared again to mastermind the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya. There's a case where even I would support a military tribunal. But he apparently slipped through your fingers. Did you actually catch any terrorists when you were a counter-intelligence agent?

516. bubbaette - 11/26/2001 9:11:54 AM

The Rama has spoken and has given us the benefit of his or her wisdom. If the pronouncements (assertions which need no explaination or defense) are simple-minded or appear to be in error, it is we, the readers, who are faulty in our comprehension. The Rama speaks in mysterious ways.

517. Rama - 11/26/2001 9:21:54 AM

Oh, yes; bleat away. The issue is that you can't admit your error. Again, how pathetic.

What are you claiming? That the assumption of innocence has been or is common? That NATO countries never used a different standard? That there was no justice where the Civil Law was used?

518. mgleason - 11/26/2001 9:45:30 AM

For the last time, you stated that [t]he Anglo-Saxon world is unusual in its innocent-until-proven-guilty fiction. Not only is the 'Anglo-Saxon world' not at all 'unusual' in this respect currently, there is also ample historical precedent, as I demonstrated.

In support of your erroneous assertion, you also stated that there are NATO allies where that is not the case, 'that' being the presumption of innocence under the law. (Emphasis added.)

You are mistaken; it's that simple. Further denials, in the teeth of your own posts, that you did not make these assertions, or that your meaning has been misunderstood, will be taken as proof that it is indeed your dharma to be an ass.

Get it? It's past time for you to pronounce some other inanity.

519. PelleNilsson - 11/26/2001 9:51:51 AM

Francis Message # 487

I checked it out. You are right. Sorry.

520. Rama - 11/26/2001 9:56:09 AM

Not only is the 'Anglo-Saxon world' not at all 'unusual' in this respect currently, there is also ample historical precedent, as I demonstrated.

As this has never been the rule in China, and is still uncommon in South America, Africa and the Middle East, it must be judged as unusual.

In support of your erroneous assertion, you also stated that there are NATO allies where that is not the case, 'that' being the presumption of innocence under the law. (Emphasis added.)

Here, I believe, is the source of your misunderstanding. I said that I had worked with NATO allies where that was not the case. You have, yourself, pointed out recent changes to European law that are a result of addressing this issue. It may be that this is no longer the case, although you have not posted any links that demonstrate it to be the case.

521. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 9:58:38 AM

wonkers

Historians and veterans alike will be pleased to know that the process that was used to try and convict Nazi spies during World War II -the same process upon which the administration models its plan - were "lynchings". Moreover, your use of the phrase "foreign national" is telling, as if the son of a diplomat from Brunei, finally cornered for parking violations, will be whisked away for a kangaroo trial on The Bounty, where, having been decreed guilty in 30 seconds flat, he will be chopped to pieces and spread as chum for the fish.

Nor is it necessary to note that Senator Leahy received an anthrax letter to bolster his credentials. In these times, it appears, we are all heroes.

As for "Ayatollah" Ashcroft, it was but a few weeks ago that we all bemoaned our lack of preparation for future terrorist attacks. But give the people a few victories on the ground, and vigilance gives way to invective, and the rights of suspects trump the lives of thousands.

Why? Because cable television and rank politics demand it.

Wonkers, you remind me on the niggling critic who demands the severe discipline of a General Patton after he impatiently strikes two soldiers (after having lost thousands to some of the most brutal fighting of the war). You pick up your newspaper stateside and chuckle as Patton is portrayed by the press as a Nazi, kicking a poor American boy when he is down. As a result of your vigilance, Patton is benched, and perhaps half a million more Jews die needlessly. But at least you feel better.

I'd be interested in your view as to whether the Nuremberg Trials were lynchings. Many a John Bircher feels that they were, as Goering, the "foreign national", was not afforded all the rights to which he might otherwise have been entitled.

In the meantime, the mundane stuff of law:

The Legality of Bush's Executive Order

522. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 9:59:37 AM

Pelle

I accept and heartily embrace you as a man of honor. We shall speak no more of this affair.

523. mgleason - 11/26/2001 11:08:34 AM

As this has never been the rule in China, and is still uncommon in South America, Africa and the Middle East, it must be judged as unusual.

I will be very interested to see your links with regard to South America, as you are not shy about demanding proof from others, even when it has already been provided. With regard to China, you may be interested in this development.

In addition to the Council of Europe with its 43 member states, the Organization of African Unity, 44 member states, has its own Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights featuring the presumption of innocence. I presume that you are also familiar with Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Cont'd.

524. mgleason - 11/26/2001 11:10:15 AM

I said that I had worked with NATO allies where that was not the case. You have, yourself, pointed out recent changes to European law that are a result of addressing this issue. It may be that this is no longer the case, although you have not posted any links that demonstrate it to be the case.

Are you as really as moronic as you sound, or just desperate?

Again, you said you had worked with NATO allies where presumption of innocence IS NOT the case. Present tense. Full stop.

I pointed out no 'recent changes to European law that are a result of addressing this issue.' The French bill from June of 2000 was a FURTHER strengthening of this principle under French law, as I pointed out at the time I made the post. I also gave you links to the membership of the Council of Europe, with ratification dates (the last NATO member to join the Council was the Czech Republic, in 1993, which can hardly be considered 'recent.') All NATO allies, with the exception of the US and Canada (which contain the presumption of innocence in their constitutions), are members, many since the Council's inception in 1949. ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREE TO ABIDE BY ARTICLE 6, SECTION 2, WHICH GUARANTEES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AS A BASIC RIGHT. I also provided a link to European Convention on Human Rights, which included this text.

Stop this charade. You are accomplishing nothing save your own humiliation.

525. mgleason - 11/26/2001 11:16:49 AM

Erratum:

Are you as really as moronic as you sound, or just desperate?

Please delete the first 'as.'

526. jexster - 11/26/2001 11:18:21 AM

The Bush administration faced new skirmishes on the home front over the weekend as senators from both parties called on Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary Committee to justify extraordinary anti-terrorism measures and Democrats took aim at the administration's proposed economic stimulus package.

WPost

527. mgleason - 11/26/2001 11:37:20 AM

Here's a hint with respect to South America: Article XXVI, AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN, Organization of American States.

528. Rama - 11/26/2001 1:53:37 PM

Again, you said you had worked with NATO allies where presumption of innocence IS NOT the case.

You don't seem to understand English grammar. The statement "As an American, I am used to that method, but having worked with NATO allies where that is not the case," which you have actually re-posted, is in the past tense. But since you've thrown this hissy fit, I checked. The Italians didn't presume innocence when they gathered up the Red Brigades, and, although they seem to have instituted some adversarial features during the late 80's, it appears they have gone back to the inquisitorial style of justice.

529. Rama - 11/26/2001 1:54:47 PM

As for South America, I got tired of cutting and pasting:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/03/22/berenson/
Human rights groups are already criticizing the legal proceedings in Peru, whose judicial system is based on the 19th century Napoleonic Code, in which an accused is presumed guilty.

http://www.freelori.org/news/01mar21_ap.html
Peru's justice system, like much of Latin America, is based on the Napoleonic Code, the body of French civil law enacted in 1804, in which there is no jury, but a panel of judges. Under the Napoleonic Code, a person is presumed guilty if arrested by the state after an investigation. Although the presumption of innocence is written into Peruvian law, the practice more closely follows that French tradition.

http://www.montana.edu/wwwfachb/trip/mexico.html
The Mexican system of justice does not utilize the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" as in the U.S. and Canada, but they utilize the Napoleonic Code of justice specifying that a defendant is "guilty until proven innocent".

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0112jetsetter.html
But under France's justice system, based on the Napoleonic Code, defendants are presumed guilty.

530. Rama - 11/26/2001 1:55:00 PM

http://www.s2a.com/venbrief398.html
The new law marks a radical departure from the centuries old Napoleonic Code and inquisitorial tradition upon which the Venezuelan judicial system was based. When fully implemented, the new system will incorporate many of the underpinnings and processes commonly associated with the accusatorial systems of Great Britain and the United States. Foremost among these is the notion that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state. (Inquisitorial systems are founded upon the presumption of guilt.)

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1996_hrp_report/chile.html
Based on the Napoleonic Code, the judicial system does not provide for trial by jury, nor does it assume innocence until proven otherwise. Criminal proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. The Constitution provides for the right to legal counsel, but the poor do not always get effective legal representation (see Section 1.d.).

531. judithathome - 11/26/2001 1:57:27 PM

I must not understand grammar, either...what about those two sentences is not the same? MG posted what you said AND then you re-posted it again just now...

532. mgleason - 11/26/2001 1:58:23 PM

Cites on Italy, please. As to your delusions of correct grammar, dream on, Weasel-Rama.

533. Snowowl - 11/26/2001 2:00:12 PM

As I said, maria, he's Humpty Dumpty. "Is" means "was" for Rama.

534. Snowowl - 11/26/2001 2:01:54 PM

It's clear to me that you all need to re-read Alice Through the Looking Glass. You'll understand Rama perfectly well if you do.

535. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 2:22:29 PM

This dispute over tense harkens to the linguistic wars of the Clintonians and Starristas.

536. PelleNilsson - 11/26/2001 2:25:12 PM

Rama started out by confidentally telling us how things are in Europe and NATO. He is now reduced to citing obscure reports from Latin America.

The corner he has painted himself into has become so miniscule that he has to climb the walls.

537. CalGal - 11/26/2001 2:30:15 PM

Francis,

Did you read Safire's column? He referenced the SC decision in your Slate article--called the SC "cowed". But he doesn't mention the significant part, as I understand it--that whether they agreed or not, they did find that it could undergo judicial review.

538. mgleason - 11/26/2001 2:33:57 PM

You're right, as usual, Snow.

My last post on this topic:

Signatories to the AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN.

Alleged human rights violations aside, the LAW in Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, Chile, and yes, FRANCE and Italy guarantees the presumption of innocence. Many legal systems have their roots in the Code Napoléon; that doesn't mean that they haven't been AMENDED.

I suppose I should find it difficult to believe that your 'cites' include 'jet-setter' articles, but sadly, I don't. Did you even note the dates on some of the stuff you linked? The only conclusion I can draw is that you cannot bring discrimination to bear in what you read, and that you have some sort of allergy to official documents.

Adieu. You have grown entirely too tiresome. Thank you, Arky and Dusty, for your patience.

539. dusty - 11/26/2001 2:34:05 PM

mgleason
Most excellent contributions. The article on China was particularly encouraging.

Rama
You seem to have an odd definition of "unusual", if it can apply to much of North America and Europe.
Please tell me, if you run across someone who speaks English, or German or Italian, or Norwegian, or Swedish, do you exclaim "How unusual!"

540. wonkers2 - 11/26/2001 4:20:41 PM

Irkheart, aside from all the extraneous, ad hominem bullshit, what's your position on the military tribunals which may be held in secret and from which there is be no appeal (according to Bush's order, at least), indefinite detention of hundreds of suspects, eavesdropping on conversations between attorneys and clients, questioning thousands of Arabic students but no American hate groups about their possible connection to anthrax, etc.? Ashcroft is your guy, but you seem to be letting him twist in the wind.

541. CalGal - 11/26/2001 4:32:01 PM

Wonkers,

I very much approve of Irkheart. I have enjoyed all the FUs, but Irkheart seems original.

The detention has all been legal, as I understand it.

542. wonkers2 - 11/26/2001 4:45:44 PM

May well be. I'm not a lawyer. So may be the tribunals. Whether they are a good idea or not is another question. I'm not sure whether they are legal, but I definitely don't think they are a good idea. As Patrick Leahy suggested the guidelines for how they are actually to be conducted will be important, e.g. will they be conducted in secret, will those tried be allowed attorneys of their own choosing, sentencing guidelines, appeals allowed or not, etc. I'm sure the Senate Judiciary Committee will work Ashcroft over pretty well on some of these issues, and on just which and how many suspected terrorists are likely to be tried by them.

543. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 4:48:16 PM

wonkers

I believe it was your posts that contained ad hominems. I merely stated that you reminded me of a critic of Patton, and I pointed out the practical cost of such criticism in the hopes that your could be educated. Upon reading your latest missive, my hopes fade.

My position is that the military tribunals will be an innovative and effective vehicle for combatting terrorism in wartime, both enhancing security abroad by keeping suspected terrorists away from long trials in federal courtrooms and providing a swift countermeasure that will not allow the enemy to abuse our heightened legal protections.

On your other points - "indefinite detention of hundreds of suspects". As I understand it, under the new anti-terrosim act, detentions have time limits. Am I incorrect, or are you?

"eavesdropping on conversations between attorneys and clients"

I'm all for it.

"questioning thousands of Arabic students but no American hate groups about their possible connection to anthrax, etc.?"

When 19 angry Idahoans down 4 planes, you'll find me similarly vigilant in terms of the focus of law enforcement and inquiry.

"Ashcroft is your guy, but you seem to be letting him twist in the wind."

Don't you mean Ayatollah Ashcroft?

544. CalGal - 11/26/2001 5:05:47 PM

I'm all for it.

So you would always allow the FBI to eavesdrop on attorney client conversations?

When 19 angry Idahoans down 4 planes, you'll find me similarly vigilant in terms of the focus of law enforcement and inquiry.

Out of curiousity, why do you always get so specific in your solutions? Wouldn't you prefer deterrence solutions that addressed all plane downings?

This is not to propose that the little old lady is the equivalent of the Arab with terrorist buddies, but then it's not like pulling Arabs aside for extra vigilant searches in airline security checks has done anything much.

545. janjon - 11/26/2001 5:12:38 PM

well, that is certainly frankie being frankie.

at least in this phase where he's inflicting us with this more-than-irritating stilted writing affectation. Probably a result of his having rented one or two too many Period movies over some weekend.

I will be charitable and assume that his assertion (clearly stated, actually) that he's all for listening in on conversations between the accused and his/her attorney is for effect only.

546. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 5:27:22 PM

All

I suggest Richard Posner's "Security Versus Civil Liberties" in this month's Atlantic (I cannot find it online).

Cal

Yes, but to the extent there are limitations of resources (and there are), it makes little sense to direct the same amount of those resources to inhibiting potential terrorist attacks by the Hell's Angels as fanatical Muslims. It is why we brought war upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not Sinn Fein and the IRA.

That you are unaware of any recent successes in airport security screening is irrelevant, and your conclusion is unverifiable, in that it cannot gauge deterrence.

This goes to my endorsement of eavesdropping. If everyday clients showed the propensity for damage to the body politic as everyday clients suspected of terrorism, I would care less about vaunted attorney-client confidentiality. That it may be my bailiwick is kind of the point. Given the threat, the everyday rules may have to give way.

547. CalGal - 11/26/2001 5:37:22 PM

That you are unaware of any recent successes in airport security screening is irrelevant, and your conclusion is unverifiable, in that it cannot gauge deterrence.

I am quite aware that there have been no "successes" in airport security screening. And the previous airport security screening was in fact an excellent deterrent. Your inability to realize this is quite relevant, obviously, so get on the stick and figure it out. Get back to me when your brain has kicked into gear.

It is why we brought war upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Not true. We declared war on terrorism. I'll be happy to provide any number of cites of our Pres saying so. And in fact the Sinn Fein did come to Jesus, knowing full well if they didn't they would become An Issue, since they are terrorists.

Yes, but to the extent there are limitations of resources (and there are), it makes little sense to direct the same amount of those resources to inhibiting potential terrorist attacks by the Hell's Angels as fanatical Muslims.

Unless terrorists are as dumb as Fredo--and I concede this possibility as advance--any effort that focuses on fanatical Muslims will merely cause fanatical Muslims to start looking and acting like Hell's Angels.

But then the government, like you, is always fighting the last war. You don't appear capable of anticipatory thinking, much less action.

I await your beatific acceptance the day that corporations--whose negligence has caused far more deaths than terrorism over the years--are deemed to be a public threat and all your conversations are recorded.

548. janjon - 11/26/2001 5:37:42 PM

"Given the threat, the everyday rules may have to give way."

What rubbish.

The logical conclusion of this new eavesdropping procedure is to say that those "suspected" of terrorism ("suspected" is the operative word here, although I'll be charitable and expand it to "accused" which has a more impressive/definitive tone to it) simply will not be given anything resembling a fair trial. Period.

Surely we as a country can do better than that.

Kneejerk has been carried far enough.

549. CalGal - 11/26/2001 5:38:23 PM

"in advance", not as.

550. janjon - 11/26/2001 5:42:52 PM

And on a related front: from William Safire's column in the Times today:

"Now President Bush, with no such Congressional declaration, is using that Roosevelt mistake as precedent for his own dismaying departure from due process. Bush's latest self-justification is his claim to be protecting jurors (by doing away with juries). Worse, his gung-ho advisers have convinced him — as well as some gullible commentators — that the Star Chamber tribunals he has ordered are "implementations" of the lawful Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Military attorneys are silently seething because they know that to be untrue. The U.C.M.J. demands a public trial, proof beyond reasonable doubt, an accused's voice in the selection of juries and right to choose counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights can be found in Bush's military order setting up kangaroo courts for people he designates before "trial" to be terrorists. Bush's fiat turns back the clock on all advances in military justice, through three wars, in the past half-century.

His advisers assured him that a fearful majority would cheer his assumption of dictatorial power to ignore our courts. They failed to warn him, however, that his denial of traditional American human rights to non- citizens would backfire and in practice actually weaken the war on terror."

551. CalGal - 11/26/2001 5:43:30 PM

Francis seems to be saying that the Constitution should be thrown out the window whenever he feels it appropriate.

I suspect that our courts find reason to skate near the line--or go over it, from time to time--when they feel it is appropriate.

My beef isn't so much that he makes light of basic rights as it is that his notion of effectiveness is laughable. Of course, that what would make him such an excellent government hack.

552. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 5:48:28 PM

janjon, Cal

I leave you to your angry jeremiads and await the comments of those who would engage in a more civil and thoughtful discourse.

Good evening.

553. janjon - 11/26/2001 5:55:31 PM

civil and thoughtful, eh.

angry, eh eh.

now, that is funny.

what pious rubbish. if you could do it well, it might even be considered condescension.

true, the audience you feel comfortable with is not usually available at this hour. They are home from pre-school watching the cartoon shows.

have a good evening. warm and fuzzy.

554. CalGal - 11/26/2001 5:57:45 PM

Jeremiads? I made one insult, to do with the effectiveness of your solutions and that you would be a good government worker. These were mere japes, and you do worse all the time. I responded on point and there is plenty for you to work with in terms of "thoughtful discourse". A recap:

1) The airport security before 9/11 was entirely effective as a deterrent.

2) Your claim that it makes more sense to focus on Muslims ignores the fact that any effort that focuses entirely on attributes will cause the terrorists to adapt--unless they are stupid, which I agreed was a possibility.

3) I asked if you would be as nonchalant if your own clients were determined to be dangerous and you had to submit to recordings.

4) I corrected your assertion that we had only declared war on Al Quaeda.

5) I agreed that your basic desire to do away with the Constitution when it's convenient has legal precedent.

I await your response, and I expect a retraction as to your saying I wasn't civil and thoughtful. By your standards, I was both. I probably won't be as annoying as you were in running around reminding you about it as you were with Pelle--even though you certainly owe a retraction on your agnostic comment as well.

555. Cellar Door - 11/26/2001 6:17:09 PM

"My position is that the military tribunals will be an innovative and effective vehicle for combatting terrorism in wartime, both enhancing security abroad by keeping suspected terrorists away from long trials in federal courtrooms and providing a swift countermeasure that will not allow the enemy to abuse our heightened legal protections."

Wishful thinking.

"Enhancing" like "innovative and effective" are adjectives more in keeping with pimping some "New Washday Miracle."


They're proffered by those who have the luxury of their own self-assurance re. the possibility of Ashcroft and his thugs throwing them in stir.

Alas, I don't have that assurance. As I'm sure you all remember, earlier this year the Secret Service paid me a personal visit -- on the reccomendation of Free Republic, who claimed by remarks in Table Talk constituted a threat on Dubbya's life.

Should things get "interesting" I have no doubt that I'll be rounded up. So should I suddenly vanish from this forum -- you'll know why.

What you, nor anyone else, will know is where and for how long.

556. Rama - 11/26/2001 6:19:19 PM

Rama started out by confidentally telling us how things are in Europe and NATO. He is now reduced to citing obscure reports from Latin America.

Were that true, you could post those words, or reference the post. Instead, you posture and pout. No Turk would behave that way.

But I am still interested in why you are chasing off side issues rather than addressing substantive points. I was acknowledging the ability of different sorts of courts to provide justice: Common Law adversarial courts, Code Law inquisitional courts, standing military courts and special military tribunals. I pointed out some of the advantages of using military tribunals to try killers of the sort this E.O. targets.

Other than paranoia, I haven't seen any arguments presented that militate against the proposed courts.

Military attorneys are silently seething because they know that to be untrue.

I spoke to an active duty JAG officer just today, and he expressed a very different view. He said that the expectation is that the procedural guidelines of current military courts would generally be followed. And he expects to be deployed into this theater of operations. Since the military legal system has been dealing with complex issues in Kosovo recently, they are particularly ready for this task at this time.

557. Cellar Door - 11/26/2001 6:19:57 PM

And here's a tale of an unlucky journalist tossed on the Ashcroft of history.

558. Rama - 11/26/2001 6:25:53 PM

remarks in Table Talk constituted a threat on Dubbya's life.

Well, on the positive side, if you didn't make death threats on a regular basis, you wouldn't have such a dramatic story to tell.

559. wonkers2 - 11/26/2001 7:44:51 PM

When Anthony Lewis, William Safire, Frank Rich, Patrick Leahy, Bob Barr, Richard Shelby and Orrin Hatch express reservations about Ashcroft's depredations, chances are he's off the reservation. Ashcroft is now violating the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege--what's next, bugging psychiatrists couches, as did Nixon's plumbers, or Catholic confessionals.

560. joezan - 11/26/2001 7:56:23 PM

The Secret Service visited you, cellar?

Neat!

561. wonkers2 - 11/26/2001 8:01:31 PM

Irkheart, my ad hominem jibes were aimed at Ashcroft and the GOP. You shouldn't take them personally.

562. arkymalarky - 11/26/2001 8:30:58 PM

But give the people a few victories on the ground, and vigilance gives way to invective, and the rights of suspects trump the lives of thousands.

Why? Because cable television and rank politics demand it.

You pick up your newspaper stateside and chuckle as Patton is portrayed by the press as a Nazi, kicking a poor American boy when he is down. As a result of your vigilance, Patton is benched, and perhaps half a million more Jews die needlessly. But at least you feel better.

Now there's dramatic hyperbole straight from the horse's mouth.

You appear to equate questioning government actions with contributing to loss of life. Of course that was all dandy when Clinton was president and made a real effort to get bin Laden and was castigated by the likes of you for only hitting an "aspirin factory."

Has it occurred to you that had the Republicans supported aggressive pursuit of bin Laden 9/11 may have been avoided? To suggest that in failing to support him you have blood on your hands is really no less than what you suggested in the above excerpts from your post wrt people who dare entertain the thought that Ashcroft and Bush are overstepping their Constitutional authority.

563. Cellar Door - 11/26/2001 8:56:40 PM

Two rather bedraggled-looking young ladies, accompanied by the LAPD. When they saw I wasn't going to kill them, the cops left. The girls tried playing "good cop/bad cop" and questioned me extensively as to my feelings about Mary Cheney.

564. mgleason - 11/27/2001 1:50:13 AM

We were once visited by two FBI agents because my uncle's doctor was being investigated for Medicare fraud. He wasn't home, but I invited them in, and we had a lovely chat about the Golden Age of mystery novels and our mutual addiction to Dragnet.

565. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 7:46:28 AM

A little more basic honesty would help Irkheart's cute little arguments.

566. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 8:46:59 AM

arky

I stated a historical antecedent for subordinating vigilance, an example that may be harsh, but is well-supported. I refer you to Victor Davis Hanson's chapter on Patton's army in The Soul of Battle, wherein he makes a compelling argument that the rebuke of Patton costs hundreds of thousands of Allied and Jewish lives. Similarly, just as the wags of the day were too punctilious for world war then, I suggested to wonkers that the vaunting of rights in the form of blind condemnation of Bush's military tribunals could have similar, unintended consequences.

Questioning government actions is all well and good, and your point regarding same has the benefit of being so general as to be fully insulating. But I am discussing (at least, I am trying to discuss) this singular policy, which many people oppose, while phrasing their opposition in bland formula (see "Constitution"; "shredding"; "we have become they" and/or "they have become us"). Opposition can have no bloody consequences, but people rarely oppose in vain. They oppose to defeat, and getting one's way in policy can often cause lives. It is a harsh, unpleasant reality.

I do not understand your references to Clinton or to the GOP. I criticized Clinton for what is now almost universally considered an ineffectual response. I am now defending a policy of this administration that many deem too strong. If I've missed your thrust, the fault may be mine. I urge you to restate it.

567. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 8:48:22 AM

But since you bring up the Clinton administration, let me rely on Judge Posner via George Will for one argument explaining the value, and perhaps the critical need, for military tribunals:

A foolishness of recent decades -- a fetishism of rights without parameters -- has been partially purged by the heat of burning jet fuel. Sobriety is evident in the mostly temperate response to President Bush's revival of the traditional wartime option of trying unlawful foreign belligerents in military tribunals. In these, evidentiary and procedural rules would be less favorable to defendants than in the criminal justice system, and there would be no appeal to the judicial system for trials held abroad for alien terrorists. Hence some professional hysterics, such as New York Times editorialists, have reacted with the theatricality of antebellum southern belles suffering the vapors over a breach of etiquette.However, Harvard's Laurence Tribe, a leading liberal professor of constitutional law, tells the New York Times, "Civil liberties is not only about protecting us from our government. It is also about protecting our lives from terrorism." And Richard A. Posner, a judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, in an essay written many weeks ago for the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly, refutes those who say civil liberties are so sacrosanct that the war against terrorism must "accommodate itself to them."Posner says that in balancing liberty and security considerations, we should remember that the constitutional language conferring rights such as "due process" is vague.!

568. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 8:48:53 AM

Such language has acquired its content incrementally, over many years, from judicial interpretations, mostly made in the context of the normal problems of criminal law -- maintaining domestic tranquility by deterring, punishing and correcting disorderly individuals.But such interpretations cannot be applied, unamended, to the problem of protecting society against a large foreign-based conspiracy to commit mass murder repeatedly. The aim here is not deterrence or rehabilitation but security and victory.On Oct. 3, The Washington Post reported that in the early spring of 1996 the government of Sudan, where Osama bin Laden then was residing, offered to arrest him and place him in Saudi custody for extradition to the United States. But the Saudis could not be persuaded to take him and the Clinton administration decided it was "lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts." Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, told The Post, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden."Which may have been true, given that the rules of the criminal justice system are designed for dealing with burglars, embezzlers, violent individuals and the like. And under those rules, we might not yet have enough evidence needed to convict him if he is, as he has been characterized, "the Ford Foundation of terrorism," making grants to terrorist cells but disconnected from operational matters.

569. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 8:50:57 AM

I am happy to add to Will's arguments, if met with something substantial and relevant (and, of course, civil). To that end, I offer a somewhat, but not entirely, lucid criticism of military tribunals.

Critique of Military Tribunals from The Wall Street Journal

Finally, I have not heard anyone make the argument that Bush and/or Ashcroft are overstepping their constitutional authority. It is my understanding that the tribunals are fairly rooted in precedent. Is this an argument you are either equipped or prepared to make? If so, I would be interested in hearing it.

570. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 9:01:54 AM

wonkers

You asked me questions. I answered each of them. I've even offered by link what you yourself have not - a critique of military tribunals that goes somewhat beyond generalizations. This is as basic as honesty can get. Moreover, the author of "Ayatollah Ashcroft" certainly, at a minimum, dabbles in the "cute".

I have met your objections, and I believe I have treated you in a civil manner. I have been steadfast in criticism of your position, but I have not intended to insult you personally. I can only assume that your insults to me are borne of an earlier transgression on my part, and for that, I apologize.

I rest assured that we can disagree as gentlemen, without rancor or personal insults.

571. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 9:07:14 AM

wonkers

Additionally, I don't believe that Nixon's plumbers bugged "psychiatrists couches". I do know that they burgled the office of Daniel Ellsberg's Los Angeles psychoanalyst to photograph Ellsberg's records, but found nothing, and left behind a messy crime scene.

572. Cellar Door - 11/27/2001 9:47:15 AM

"Finally, I have not heard anyone make the argument that Bush and/or Ashcroft are overstepping their constitutional authority."

They're the guys that put the "con" in "constitution."

573. CalGal - 11/27/2001 10:15:08 AM

Francis,

Message # 554

574. CalGal - 11/27/2001 10:18:13 AM

It is my understanding that the tribunals are fairly rooted in precedent.

I actually raised a point, but you ignored it.

The Slate article points out that such tribunals are subject to judicial review. If I understand it, the SC made it so just by reviewing FDR's need for one, even if they approved it.

575. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:09:31 AM

Quirin was on writ of habeas corpus. As such, the Court merely considered the constitutionality of the cause of confinement, not the guilt or innocence of the petitioners ("We are not here concerned with any question of the guilt or innocence of petitioners.")

Having deemed the cause (i.e., Roosevelt's order of July 2, 1942) constitutional, even though the Order explicitly denied those tried thereunder access to the courts, the Bush administration's argument will be that the matter is settled.

Detainees, however, will attempt to rely on Quirin to argue that without a formal declaration of war, the tribunals are unconstitutional.

Where Slate is wrong is where it states that Quirin "also upheld the constitutional requirement of judicial review." It did not reach the issue. The only issue it decided is whether the tribunal was constitutional and permitted by law, a far cry from the rigorous judicial review generally afforded. Having deemed the cause of confinement constitutional, there was no additional judicial review on the merits.

Given that the tribunals could be a) held in secret and b) held on foreign soil, or even on a ship somewhere in the Pacific, it is also quite possible that no court will ever hear of the potential constitutional arguments of a convicted terrorist.

576. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:15:22 AM

As for 554, in my quest to be a better contributor and a better example, I no longer answer queries posted after insults. Moreover, those are mainly side issues that will run down rabbit trails, and they do not interest me. Whereas, the issue of military tribunals does interest me.

577. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:15:55 AM

578. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:16:31 AM

I apologize for my inability to stop the italics and appreciate in advance all assistance.

579. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 11:17:34 AM

DOH!

580. rubberducky - 11/27/2001 11:18:12 AM

toys?

581. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:18:14 AM

Zojak

You are a gentleman (or a lady). Thank you.

582. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:18:35 AM

Ducks

And you too, sir.

583. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 11:20:34 AM

Zojak

You are a gentleman (or a lady). Thank you.

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

584. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:22:07 AM

Zojak

I'm intrigued.

585. janjon - 11/27/2001 11:49:08 AM

the use of military tribunals, or "courts" with many of their attributes,and the various permutations that go with that, are indeed a complex and nuanced topic. There are overall security concerns - mostly relating to the harm that could be created by public disclosure of either certain types of evidence or, more likely, the means by which that evidence is obtained - that at the least justify using established tribunals or putting in place ones that are designed to protect against those concerns.

However - I defy anyone to come up with a plausible/justifiable (more than just "these times require drastic measures" arguments) rationale that justifies "eavesdropping" on communications between suspects/accused and their counsel. One might as well simply say that such suspects/accused are not entitled to counsel.

586. CalGal - 11/27/2001 11:51:02 AM

Francis,

I raised several rebuttals to your posts. I also said that your solutions were ineffective, you could be an excellent government worker, and that your brain clearly wasn't in gear or you would have figured something out--which is actually a sign of regard. I could find five such "insults" in your own posts. I was certainly not sneering "Oh, Frankie is just being Frankie" nonsense that others have done, and quite frankly you have done me far more insult by implying that I have. I was certainly no more insulting than Arky, and yet you responded to her.

As to your "I will never respond to someone after they have insulted me" policy plan, please let me know if this is of recent vintage. Give me the date the policy started. Or announce that it has started now. I will verify your adherence to this law and document every time you violate it--which, knowing you, will be immediately. I will hound you until you answer it, just as you did with Pelle and believe me, I will be more irritating than even you were with your Victorian huffiness now that you have pissed me off.

Or you can just answer the post #554 and forget the other nonsense.

587. CalGal - 11/27/2001 11:56:10 AM

Oh, I forgot.

If they are "side issues" that no longer interest you, then retract the assertions you made about them.

1) You were incorrect about Bush having declared war solely on Al Quaeda and not on terrorism.

2) You can't claim that it makes sense to focus on Muslims without answering the objection I made.

3) You can't claim that I "don't know" about the effectiveness of airline security before and after 9/11.

Retract on those three; I will take it as a given that you would cheerfully accept recordings of your conversations with your clients.

588. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:58:21 AM

Consider them retracted.

589. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:59:11 AM

janjon

I will take the challenge. I hope to be able to explicate the justification at length.

590. ronski - 11/27/2001 12:02:47 PM

Isn't there a difference between having a right to counsel and having a right to a privileged relationship with counsel?

Just asking.

591. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:07:46 PM

However - I defy anyone to come up with a plausible/justifiable (more than just "these times require drastic measures" arguments) rationale that justifies "eavesdropping" on communications between suspects/accused and their counsel. One might as well simply say that such suspects/accused are not entitled to counsel.

1. Kinda depends on your definition of "justifiable/plausible" doesn't it?

2. Sometimes "drastic times require drastic measures" is enough of a justification.

Remember that there are safeguards to the eavesdropping. Anything heard cannot be used in Court against that suspect. The rationale is that the suspects could either warn accomplices or put other plots into motion through discussions with counsel.

Yes, the possibility of abuse is scary. But assuming that what is said cannot be used, and assuming that it is limited to suspects of terrorism, is it the possiblity of preventing a tragedy worth the risk that these suspects will be less forthcoming with their lawyers if they know they are being recorded?

I'd say yes. But then again, the risk that I'll be the guy on the hotseat is slim to none. So I can say that from a position of comfort. I am also confident that if the government abuses this power that a court somewhere will slap them down. And fast.

592. janjon - 11/27/2001 12:08:25 PM

yes, there can be, ronski. among other things, that gets one into the concept that a lawyer as an officer of the court is obliged to divulge information obtained from a client that relates to the prospective commission of a crime, etc. but, that is a far more subtle and complex topic than a situation where everything being discussed between counsel and client is being overheard/recorded etc.

593. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:09:10 PM

...long before it gets to the point where the government is eavesdropping on me talking to my lawyer about my speeding ticket....

594. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 12:11:51 PM

janjon

The eavesdropping is justified by the modern realities of breaking a terrorist cell. The client continues to have benefit of counsel. The eavesdropping is to prohibit the delivery of information via a legal representative that could impede enforcement and that could assist a cell in avoidance of detection. The regulation is circumscribed.

And I see that zojak has beaten me to the punch.

595. janjon - 11/27/2001 12:12:17 PM

who has said that the information obtained cannot be used in court?

what about being able to use the information to obtain collateral evidence that "proves" the same point. Still inadmissible?

596. janjon - 11/27/2001 12:14:03 PM

what do you mean by "the regulation is circumscribed".

597. janjon - 11/27/2001 12:15:02 PM

it is ironic to see conservatives so trusting in their government.

598. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 12:21:11 PM

Irkheart, I guess you got me there. Caught in a giant exaggeration--Nixon's plumbers didn't bug Ellsberg's analyst's couch. They just tried to steal Ellsberg's psychiatric records from his psychiatrist's office. Ashcroft says he's following Roosevelt's example, but in my book he's a lot closer to Nixon and Mitchell.

599. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:26:00 PM

Is the purpose of the eavesdropping to ensure that the terrorists won't provide information? Could the same thing be accomplished by requiring lawyers to inform authorities if certain information is passed on to them?

600. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 12:26:19 PM

Eavesdropping occurs only after it is determined that there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the inmate is using the contacts to facilitate acts of terrorism or violence. To date, since the promulgation of the Justice Department rule, the measure has only affected 13 individuals taken into custody

Moreover, the rule states that the lawyer and detainee are notified PRIOR to moinitoring that they will be so monitored, unless a court order specifies otherwise. The team monitoring the communications will have no connection to the prosecution and anything monitored cannot be used in court - period.

601. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 12:27:56 PM

Cal

Not if the presumption is that the lawyer is a mule for the cell, as the mule would presumably ignore the requirement.

602. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:28:34 PM

Janjon, the Justice Dept has issued regs.

As to conservatives trusting their government....

Not sure who you're referring to, but I don't think conservatives say thatthere is NO legitimate purpose for government. One of its purposes is to protect me so I can go get my Starbucks Venti Skim Extra-Hot No-Foam Quad Shot Latte without worrying that someone is gonna blow up the office building it's in to make a point.

Does that mean I want them regulating how much caffeinie I can have? No.

603. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:29:01 PM

So why can't this be accomplished by requiring the lawyers to inform the authorities of certain communications?

604. rubberducky - 11/27/2001 12:30:35 PM

will the client and/or attorney be notified that they are no longer guaranteed confidentiality or is it just assumed 'no'?

605. rubberducky - 11/27/2001 12:31:09 PM

um, nevermind, didn't see Fran's #600

606. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:33:00 PM

Not if the presumption is that the lawyer is a mule for the cell, as the mule would presumably ignore the requirement.


But if the presumption is that a lawyer is a mule for the cell, how can he be assumed to be following any of the rules of law? Using that standard, the judge could just throw out the entire case on the grounds that the lawyer was obviously suborning perjury, violating the code of ethics, or anything else--merely by accepting a suspected terrorist as a client.

607. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 12:33:49 PM

Cal

I don't understand 606.

608. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:33:52 PM

Could the same thing be accomplished by requiring lawyers to inform authorities if certain information is passed on to them?

The mule point is a good one, but I think there are other concerns as well.

For example, Biff Wellington is arrested on terrorism charges. He says to his lawyer tell Buffy I said to say hello to Madeline. And tell her not to forget to feed my polo pony.

The lawyer may not know that Buffy is the head of a cell. And that the request to say hello to Madeline is a code to instigate plan C. And that feeding the polo pony means it's time to blow up Ron Jeremy's house.

The gov't on the other hand, thru it's investigation, may know some or all of the above.

In short, you can't require a lawyer to report what he doesn't know has been said.

609. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 12:34:13 PM

What would be wrong with requiring an order from a judge before eavesdropping on an attorney and client as can be done in certain exigent circumstances under current law, according to someone I heard on the radio this morning? Ashcroft and Bush have cut the other two branches out of the process. Leahy is pissed at Ashcroft because after Congress quickly gave him nearly everything he asked for, he now has talked Bush into going farther without consultation with Congress.

610. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:34:14 PM

For that matter, if the lawyer is presumed to be a mule, then he or she should instantly be considered a suspected terrorist and no longer able to function as a lawyer.

611. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:40:06 PM

Francis,

You are saying that the lawyer can't be trusted. But the entire justice system works on the presumption that the lawyer can be trusted. If the lawyer can't be trusted to follow the code of ethics and whatever oath it is he or she takes, then none of the baseline assumptions can be made.

If a lawyer is suspected of being a mule, then he or she is a criminal. If he or she is a criminal, then treat him as a suspected criminal.

But in your scenario, the lawyer would be completely trustworthy with another client, and all boundaries observed. So I don't see the logic that the lawyer is a suspected mule--I don't htink you could make that case as a justification.

If the lawyer is trustworthy, then the lawyer can be required to turn over certain information if it is revealed.

This also eliminates the possibility of an honest lawyer who is handed suspect information while not monitored that he would otherwise be unable to turn over because it would be a violation of privlegel.

612. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:40:28 PM

I think the preceived issue of coded communications is the more serious concern. Ashcroft addressed it on one of those Sunday shows or late night shows little while ago.

613. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:43:08 PM

...Cal. Sorry, but you're going a bit overboard with your perceived point....

614. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:43:16 PM

Coded communications makes much more sense than Francis' notion that the lawyer is to be judged by his clients. But I still think that could be covered without eavesdropping, and more effectively.

615. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:44:41 PM

How? Issue code books to all lawyers and thereby provide classified information to people who haven't yet been cleared?

I'd love to hear the solution....

616. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:45:11 PM

Zojak,

Not overboard at all. If a lawyer is to be deemed untrustworthy based on his clients, where does the line get drawn on his believability? I'm not speaking of any outrage, merely the premise of the system.

Of course lawyers lie, and of course they often are actually sympathetic with their clients' cause. But you can't presume that as justification for certain actions.

617. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:46:11 PM

Issue code books to all lawyers and thereby provide classified information to people who haven't yet been cleared?


Much simpler. No messages conveyed.

618. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:49:55 PM

Much simpler. No messages conveyed.

Messages maybe necessary for the defense.

i.e. I need you to talk to Biff. Tell him to tell you about my alibi. I was with Madeline feeding my polo pony at the time.

If it's a legit alibi. You've prohibited the lawyer from pursuing it. If you don't eavesdrop and the lawyer does pursue it because he has to zealously represent his client - and it's notalegit alibi. Boom. There goes Ron jeremy's house.

619. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 12:51:38 PM

I believe essentially the same problem has already been dealt with in cases where lawyers and their clients are believed to be continuing to carry on criminal activity. The prosecutor goes to a judge and makes his case and gets an order permitting a wiretap. At least that was what I understood from a commentator on the Dian Rehm show this morning. Ashcroft is "merely" skipping the step involving permission from a judge. Only a small technicality.

620. janjon - 11/27/2001 12:55:39 PM

gee, it is comforting to know that suspects and their counsel will at least know that they are being overheard, probably filmed (after all - there is the possibility that they could use hand signals to pass on the meaningful stuff while yakking it up.)

and, equally comforting to be told that the monitors will have no connection with the prosecution.

621. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:57:35 PM

Wonkers -

In the case of coded communications, Ashcroft may not be able to get a wiretap. They may only think it's a possibility that the communications would occur and not have probable cause.

So the question is, in the case of suspected terrorists who could possibly kill thousands, are you willing to live with the lower standard? I am.

622. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:58:30 PM

Messages maybe necessary for the defense.



If they are necessary, then the same issue of required notification can be set up.

623. CalGal - 11/27/2001 12:58:45 PM

same solution, not issue.

624. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 12:58:52 PM

janjon-

again, fine don't trust the government. You're free to trust the suspected terrorists more.

625. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 1:00:55 PM

If they are necessary, then the same issue of required notification can be set up.

So we're back to deciding that it's up to the lawyer to squeal on a client where something he has been told may or may not be a code....

626. zojak quafeth - 11/27/2001 1:02:19 PM

Nope. Rather than have the lawyer miss the issue or wrestle with it, I'd prefer Ashcroft's solutions. There are oomany variables a lawyer may not consider if he/she doesn't have the background, the facts, or the confidential information.

627. janjon - 11/27/2001 1:03:20 PM

wonkers has hit the truly sore point squarely.

the fatal flaw in this new policy is that it is totally bereft of any meaningful checks and balances. The procedures required, court order and all, for wiretapping are a perfect example.

628. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:03:47 PM

So we're back to deciding that it's up to the lawyer to squeal on a client where something he has been told may or may not be a code....

No, it's not "up to the lawyer". Lawyers are legally required to notify authorities of certain types of communications. This would just be added to the list. The process already exists.

629. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:07:52 PM

Rather than have the lawyer miss the issue or wrestle with it, I'd prefer Ashcroft's solutions.

If a lawyer's client tells him that he is planning on killing someone, or that he knows someone who is to be killed, I believe the lawyer has to tell someone? I forget what the other situations are. But the whole notion of "missing the issue" or "wrestling with it" is a problem with an existing process that is intended to handle this sort of situation.

It is also a far more comprehensive solution, in that it doesn't rest on the FBI's ability to anticipate. Something they have demonstrated a remarkable lack of aptitude for.

Now, if the lawyer is indeed suspected of being a terrorist, then wonkers' response is apt.

630. bubbaette - 11/27/2001 1:12:38 PM

What worries me about all this is Ashcroft's background and track record. We're not talking about someone who seems to have much respect for civil liberties in the first place and I can't help thinking that this type of thing would be on his wish list regardless of the pretext of 9/11. If it were someone a bit more moderate to begin with than Ashcroft, his bid for a police state might be less unsettling.

631. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:15:53 PM

That whole "but it's Ashcroft so it's worse" makes no sense to me, any more than the "well, all is just because terrorism is worse" line does. It either makes sense or it doesn't, it is either an effective and constitutional solution or it isn't.

632. bubbaette - 11/27/2001 1:24:09 PM

My feeling is that Ashcroft has already shown antipathy toward certain minority groups and gives me the impression that he views certain Americans as les-than-full-Americans. If I can agree that certain due process measures may be expendable during times of war for certain target groups (which I'm not necessarily agreeing with), I would rather have a moderate in charge than an an anti-gay, anti-black, anti-choice, confederate apologist like Ashcroft. Ashcroft is a give-him-an-inch-take-a-mile kind of guy and I don't trust him any farther than I could kick him.

633. janjon - 11/27/2001 1:31:20 PM

any system, especially when it tinkers with long-standing civil liberties and protections - that doesn't have effective checks and balances - which in this instance means the involvement, both in approving and monitoring and ultimately in assessing, of the Judiciary - is inherently fatally flawed. You have to take into account the flaws - be they personal venality or extreme vigilance/blind adherence to convictions that their cause is so just that it justifies all means, etc. - of a person or a chain in command down from that person.

634. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:31:43 PM

The policy will either provide the necessary control against abuse or it won't. Any approval that is hinged on the personnel administrating it is pretty much flawed on its face.

635. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:33:33 PM

You have to take into account the flaws - be they personal venality or extreme vigilance/blind adherence to convictions that their cause is so just that it justifies all means, etc. - of a person or a chain in command down from that person.

No, a system has little to do with the "personal". Anyone who approves a system based on liking the people who propose it deserves all the shit that will be kicked on them as a result. The reverse holds as well.

636. Jenerator - 11/27/2001 1:33:38 PM

I don't know Bubba, with those enormous thighs of yours, you'd be able to kick him pretty far!




;-)

637. janjon - 11/27/2001 1:42:56 PM

You misread that post, Cal Gal. The flaw in what has been proposed/now put into place, is that its only real check is the premise that the person(s) in charge of it will be balanced and not use it abusively - be it because of personal venality or distorted personal conviction.

638. bubbaette - 11/27/2001 1:46:20 PM

With my four inch stiletto heels, he'd be jumping part of the way.

I'm not in favor of suspending civil liberties in general. I can see more of a case in times of war for providing a lower standard of due process for non-citizens than for citizens. That doesn't mean that I favor a kangaroo court over which Attorney General Lynch-Em-Now presides. The notion of communications with one's attorney not being privileged is especially troubling.

I agree that either a policy is deserving of consideration on its merits or not. However, I also think that the person administering a policy has alot to do with the form that policy takes when enacted. I've been in government too long to think that implementation is divorced from the implementor's personality and inclinations. In Ashcroft's case, I don't like to see his name in connection with suspending civil liberties because I think he will go after suspending civil liberties with all the zeal his zealot's heart can muster.

639. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:47:07 PM

You're right, I did misread. I thought you were agreeing with Bubba.

I agree that a problem is insufficient checks. But I think it's easier to argue that it is an insufficient solution.

640. CalGal - 11/27/2001 1:47:49 PM

I don't know that there is a suspension of civil liberties if attorney client conversations are monitored, are there? They are notified, correct?

641. ronski - 11/27/2001 1:50:25 PM

Ashcroft's firing of all black and all gay people working in the Justice Department must have happened while I was on vacation.

642. bubbaette - 11/27/2001 2:14:26 PM

Who claimed that Ashcroft had filed all the black and gay people working in the Justice Department?

643. rubberducky - 11/27/2001 2:15:14 PM

in file 13 no less!

644. CalGal - 11/27/2001 2:16:56 PM

I suspect he was referring to: I would rather have a moderate in charge than an an anti-gay, anti-black, anti-choice, confederate apologist like Ashcroft

I mean, surely he'd have fired all the flunkies who offended him by their very existence. It's been a year.

645. Absensia - 11/27/2001 2:28:50 PM

Remember the Berringan brothers? From the 60's and 70's? Who says this law is just for foreigners?

646. CalGal - 11/27/2001 2:33:29 PM

Actually, that piece says the law existed before Ashcroft. He just extended it. The treatment the brother got would have been legal before Ashcroft, if I understand it correctly.

647. Absensia - 11/27/2001 2:51:34 PM

But it wasn't happening and not for things like this. Look at the timing and the excuse they gave. He didn't do anything wrong nor is there an allegation he did. The article is disturbing to me, and more so since I just watched Ashcroft's news conference. Talk about hubris and arrogance. At the end, a reporter asked a legitimate question, and Ashcroft said: "Why don't you use that for your platform next time you run for president." And then left, smirking. Ashcroft no doubt thinks he IS president.

648. Absensia - 11/27/2001 2:55:41 PM

Cal..there is not a single indication that the 70 yr old ex priest was in anyway disrupting anything. He is a known lefty...even though he is old. He has been in prison for a long time...no way he knows anything that would be a threat to national security.

649. CalGal - 11/27/2001 2:58:44 PM

I said nothing of whether or not it was appropriate. Only that it was legal prior to Ashcroft's policy changes, if I understand it. Ashcroft only sought to extend the time that prisoners can be held incommunicado. So whether he had the right to do it or not really isn't the question, is it? The right has existed for a long time. Or did I misread?

650. Absensia - 11/27/2001 3:09:44 PM

I think the new reg goes farther than the previous one and it isn't just extending time.
This includes denying an attorney access to a client under many circumstances, to even discern why someone is being held incommunicado, and now if an attorney does get access to his client, the government can eavesdrop, even though it's an American citizen. It is a vicious circle. He is a security risk, therefore we'll put him in the hole, therefore if he's in isolation, we'll consider him dangerous and eavesdrop on conversations between him and his attorney.

Under the old regulations, the dept. of justice or state prisons had to justify why prisoners were held in such a way, et. al.
And I disagree, the question is whether Ashcroft has a right or should have a right to do such things. The right to keep someone in isolation was not the same in the past. And any attempt to go beyond a "reasonable" time was reviewable by the courts via a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

651. Absensia - 11/27/2001 3:12:45 PM

These type of regulations usually, as the article states, are subject to public hearing before enactment and it appears the old regulations giving them the initial authority were made without public hearing as well.

652. CalGal - 11/27/2001 3:18:39 PM

I think the new reg goes farther than the previous one and it isn't just extending time.


Not true, as I read it.

The article is quite dishonest.

Under the new rules, the Department of Justice, "based on information from the head of a federal law enforcement or intelligence agency," will select certain prisoners for "special administrative measures." These "may include housing the inmate in administrative detention" (another term for isolation) and denying that inmate "correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to prevent the disclosure of classified information."

Prior to these new rules, the amount of time an inmate could be held under such conditions was limited to 120 days, although the Department of Justice had the authority to renew the stay in isolation. The new regulations authorize the Bureau of Prisons to hold an inmate incommunicado for a "period of time designated by the Director [of the Bureau of Prisons], up to one year." In addition, "The rule also allows for the Director to extend the period for the special administrative measures for additional one-year periods, based on subsequent certifications from the head of an intelligence agency."

But everything that is "under the new rules" was under the old rules as well. Incommunicado, no lawyer contact (given no immediate legal need), and so on. All according to the old rules--which could even extend the time period past 120 days.

All Ashcroft is seeking to do is to extend the time period. But since the prisoners haven't yet passed the 120 day mark, there is nothing that couldn't have been done under any other AG.

653. Absensia - 11/27/2001 3:23:40 PM

Really? Perhaps. I'll consider your comments carefully and also look at the actual old regs and see if there is any difference other than the eavesdropping. And if your client is being held incommunicado, and it appears for illegal reasons, then there is a type of "action" pending. But let me see what I can find.

654. CalGal - 11/27/2001 3:26:59 PM

I'm just going by the article. If I've misread it or if it got something inaccurate, fine.

But it was hyperventilating about rules that were in place before Ashcroft.

I don't particularly like the way they were used, either--although in the case of American black Muslims there is legitimate cause for concern (many have declared outright support of bin Laden). But there's no point in blaming Ashcroft for his ability to hold prisoners incommunicado if the policy existed before he showed up.

655. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 5:26:17 PM

Someone said on NPR this morning that the constitution says it applies to all "persons" in the United States, not all "citizens" except where citizens are specified. I don't have a copy handy. Maybe I can find one on-line.

656. CalGal - 11/27/2001 5:36:01 PM

Not all the Bill of Rights, but some of them. I think we've discussed this before. But clearly immigrants and aliens don't have all the same rights, or we couldn't boot them out.

657. Cellar Door - 11/27/2001 5:39:03 PM

If lawyers are to be judged on the basis of their clients, then Francis should be serving 5-20 in Pelican Bay.

658. ronski - 11/27/2001 5:39:06 PM

Even leftist lawyer Ron Kuby acknowledged on the radio this morning that citizens and visitors have never been afforded equal rights in the U.S.

659. Cellar Door - 11/27/2001 5:40:57 PM

"Ashcroft's firing of all black and all gay people working in the Justice Department must have happened while I was on vacation."

That would require his scuttling of job protection statues put in place thanks to the efforts of Lefties like me, ronski.

660. janjon - 11/27/2001 5:44:27 PM

are these animated statues that bop bad people or even evil-doers on the head?

carry on.

661. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 5:47:19 PM

U.S. Constitution

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not by violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particular description of the place to be searched and the PERSON or things to be seized.

Amendment 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 offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, not 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.

[I believe the above amendments which refer to "persons" not "citizens" were the ones that the speaker I heard claimed apply to all humans who are in the United States, not just to citizens.]

662. ronski - 11/27/2001 5:48:09 PM

Cellar,

And you are suggesting he would fire blacks and gays if he could? It would be fairly simple for the latter to be so dispatched; all it would require is the Administration rescinding Clinton's executive order, which it has the power to do.

663. arkymalarky - 11/27/2001 6:31:06 PM

FU,

I do not understand your references to Clinton or to the GOP. I criticized Clinton for what is now almost universally considered an ineffectual response. I am now defending a policy of this administration that many deem too strong. If I've missed your thrust, the fault may be mine. I urge you to restate it.

My point is that the same suggestion that those who oppose Ashcroft's new policies wrt suspected terrorists are partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, based on your comparison of past events to the current situation, could be applied to those who opposed Clinton's aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda and bin Ladin during his administration, resulting in the administration backing off rather than pursuing a more aggressive and thus more likely successful operation.

IOW, Clinton's response was ineffectual because his opponents' opposition prevented its effectiveness partly because the first try didn't hit the target and partly due to a lack of appreciation on their part of the importance of disabling al Qaeda and taking out bin Ladin, thus allowing them to become a much greater threat. It can just as easily be argued that their criticism affected the subsequent actions of the Clinton administration, empowering al Quaeda and bin Ladin for future aggression and the loss of thousands of lives, as it could be argued that opposition to Ashcroft's policies will enable future terrorists to kill thousands more.

664. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 7:23:04 PM

arky

"My point is that the same suggestion that those who oppose Ashcroft's new policies wrt suspected terrorists are partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, based on your comparison of past events to the current situation, could be applied to those who opposed Clinton's aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda and bin Ladin during his administration, resulting in the administration backing off rather than pursuing a more aggressive and thus more likely successful operation."

My point was not that those who oppose the DOJ rule have blood on their hands. The rule is in effect. As such, they cannot have blood on their hands. Do you concede that an excessive concern over individual rights may very well make terrorist violence more likely? I certainly concede that a more vigilant approach to terrorist violence, including many of the processes I support in the thread, makes civil rights abuses more likely. I simply tote up potential civil rights abuses against massive loss of life, which colors my philosophy on the matter. And thus, my point with regard to Patton -yes, his actions were violative of the young men he slapped. But on the tote board, in war, I keep the best fighting man on the field.

However, you are the first person I have encountered who has described the Clinton Administration's approach to Al Qaeda and bin Laden as "aggressive. I am of the view that a certain 1990s bipartisan timidity and insularity made us ripe for terrorist acts.

665. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 7:23:45 PM

"IOW, Clinton's response was ineffectual because his opponents' opposition prevented its effectiveness partly because the first try didn't hit the target and partly due to a lack of appreciation on their part of the importance of disabling al Qaeda and taking out bin Ladin, thus allowing them to become a much greater threat."

Here are some authorities on the Clinton Administration's (and Congress') approach to bin laden, Al Qaeda and terrorism in general that do not comport with your surprising view that it was Clinton's opponents who thwarted a rigorous attempt to get bin Laden.

Lawrence Kaplan deems the Clinton Administration's Response to Terrorism "a profoundly defective paradigm"

Leahy Trumps Feinstein and Kyl

Reuel Marc Gerecht

Jacob Weisberg - Should We Blame Clinton? (Conclusion-mere negligence, shared by many)

Weisberg's article, which I think is very fair and fairly comprehensive, does not mention your theory that Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden were hindered by "opponents" (I presume, domestic in nature).

So, while your point might be easily argued, I don't see that it has much support and would appreciate you providing same at your convenience.

666. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 7:24:54 PM

Ladies, gentlemen.

Good evening.

667. CalGal - 11/27/2001 7:30:19 PM

I am of the view that a certain 1990s bipartisan timidity and insularity made us ripe for terrorist acts.


It started long before the 90s. I think the policy began with Reagan.

668. jexster - 11/27/2001 7:33:06 PM

Bush Gestapo Chief Holding 550 in Concentration Camp - Won't Release Names

669. jexster - 11/27/2001 7:34:02 PM

FU - Wag the Dog...not your penis

670. arkymalarky - 11/27/2001 7:55:04 PM

FU,

I don't really have to for my particular point to be made. His actions were criticized for not achieving the goal, even though they were limited, and he didn't push more aggressively for success. His ineffectiveness can as easily be attributed to the pressure he felt from criticism to back off as anything else.

The articles don't counter my suggestion as to why Clinton may have been less aggressive than he could have been once he put his sights on bin Laden after the embassy bombings, and I don't have to prove the accusation any more than you have to prove that those who criticize Ashcroft's actions will be partly responsible for future terrorist attacks. The causation of your other Patton example can only be suggested, not proven, no matter how compelling the analysis, as well.

671. arkymalarky - 11/27/2001 8:05:18 PM

The bottom line is that if we must feel a responsibility in this country when we dare disagree with any government policies for anything that results from changes in said policies, even to the point we capitulate silently though we feel the government's actions are wrong or opposed to our understanding of the Constitution and basic national principles, then the whole idea of popular participation is pointless. The suggestion that disagreement with Ashcroft is tantamount to assisting future terrorist acts is really offensive to the concept of a democratic system and those who participate in it.

672. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 8:23:00 PM

Hot debate on the Lehrer News Hour--Anthony Lewis v. a reporter named Perkins from the San Diego Tribune. Perkins was no match for Lewis.

In the lead-in Leahy blasted the wiretapping of defense counsels and interviews with hundreds of Arabs without consultation with congress.

Bob Barr called the actions "A massive suspension of civil liberties like never before in U. S. history. Bush doesn't want to declare war but wants to have cake and eat it too."

Referring to Spain's refusal to extradite suspects, Bush said he would explain it to the "President" of Spain. [Spain has a Prime Minister, not a president.]

Lewis called the tribunals "The most dangerous assault on our constitution in my lifetime."

Although depicted by Ashcroft as if it applied to bin Laden and the Al Qaida, the order is broadly written to apply to all 20 million foreign residents now in the U.S.

Lewis called the action "A coup by the President of an extremely dangerous character."

He said that the 6th Amendment, without exception guarantees a speedy jury trial for everyone.

Although our system rests on the separation of powers, Bush's action excludes the other two branches, and the order denies the right of appeal to any court.

Perkins only made a couple of points: the 20 million foreign residents won't be affected, and secret trials are necessary to prevent public testimony harmful to U.S. interests, e.g., bin Laden quit using his satellite phone after he found out we were intercepting him. He said foreigners will receive the same fair procedures afforded to our own military service people.

But Lewis quickly pointed out that this is not the case--the trials can be secret; the accused may not be able to hear the evidence against them; and they won't be able to choose their counsel. Further, the U.S. has repeatedly accused other countries who use such tribunals as violators of human rights.

673. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 8:36:49 PM

I've never before seen Tony Lewis so steamed as he was tonight on Lehrer.

Until I learned different tonight I had assumed Ashcroft's military tribunals would be conducted the same as trials of U.S. service men and women under the UJCJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which Lewis conceded is not too bad. [But I'm not sure they are well suited to trials of suspected terrorists.] But Ashcroft's tribunals don't even provide the minimal safeguards for the accused provided by military courts martial. This reinforces everything I said when arguing with Rama about the use of military courts for terrorists. I think we both were assuming or at least I was that the courts were the same as those for service personnel. The reporter who tried to debate Anthony Lewis did too, arguing that "If the tribunals are good enough for our service personnel they are certainly good enough for terrorists." My impression is that Perkins and yours truly aren't the only ones making this erroneous assumption. Our allies and other countries are probably making the correct assumption that Bush's tribunals, as he has proposed them, would be gross violations of basic human rights. This perception by the rest of the world is reason enough for avoiding such a needless shortcut.

674. wonkers2 - 11/27/2001 8:52:41 PM

U.S. Constitution

Amendment 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 where 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 witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining withesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

According to A. Lewis the 6th amendment applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. He doesn't consider Roosevelt's ordering of military trials during World War II for eight German saboteurs who landed in New Jersey from a U-Boat a high point of Roosevelt's presidency. But he distinguishes this case from the present one because (1)World War II had been declared and (2)Roosevelt's action applied only to eight saboteurs, not the potentially great numbers covered by the broadly written Bush order.

675. Snowowl - 11/27/2001 9:52:29 PM

Referring to Spain's refusal to extradite suspects, Bush said he would explain it to the "President" of Spain. [Spain has a Prime Minister, not a president

I'm sure the "President" of Spain is really looking forward to hearing Bush's explanations.
Maybe the President of the USA's advisors had better give him a quick lesson on the political structure of Spain so he doesn't make any gaffes when he talks with the PM.

676. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:03:12 PM

arky

"His actions were criticized for not achieving the goal, even though they were limited, and he didn't push more aggressively for success. His ineffectiveness can as easily be attributed to the pressure he felt from criticism to back off as anything else."

His ineffectiveness can just as easily be attributed to his birth sign or El Nino, but justifiably so? It appears that support for any of the stated theories of the Clinton administration's ineffectiveness - be it my fanciful suggestions or yours - are of equal validity. I shall not press the point further.

"The suggestion that disagreement with Ashcroft is tantamount to assisting future terrorist acts is really offensive to the concept of a democratic system and those who participate in it."

There are consequences to policy stands and those consequences can be devastating. An apt illustration is the article I linked on the Feinstein-Kyl legislation as derailed by Leahy. It would have been no more offensive for Feinstein to say to Leahy, "You are putting us in harm's way."

Offensive to democracy? I think not. Rather, Feinstein's participation, like my admonition to wonkers, is functioning democracy.

677. Francis Urquhart - 11/27/2001 11:04:25 PM

As I sense the twilight of this exchange, I leave you the last word.

678. Rama - 11/28/2001 9:10:01 AM

My impression is that Perkins and yours truly aren't the only ones making this erroneous assumption.

I am also making this assumption, as was the one active JAG I have spoken too. What makes you believe it is erroneous?

679. dusty - 11/28/2001 1:32:39 PM

wonkers2 (and Snowowl)

Before you start your castigation of Bush's knowledge, you might want to do some homework:

From the CIA Factbook:
head of government: President of the Government Jose Maria AZNAR Lopez (since 5 May 1996);


Also
President of the Government of Spain to visit Rideau Hall

680. dusty - 11/28/2001 1:39:32 PM

BTW, some places do refer to him as Prime Minister. But it appears that President is also correct.

681. Absensia - 11/28/2001 2:58:26 PM

Dusty,

Yes, at the news conference CNN indicated that President and Prime Minister are appropriate.

682. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 3:58:40 PM

Rama, did you read my post, above? I learned from Anthony Lewis on the Leherer News Hour that Bush's order permits military tribunals that do not provide for the same safeguards as provided by the UCMJ.

683. CalGal - 11/28/2001 4:02:00 PM

I meant to thank you for alerting me to that discussion, Wonkers.

I've said before that I think it entirely appropriate to make terrorism a military matter. I don't like the secret aspect, nor the lack of judicial review.

As for safeguards not being provided, I don't know that I'd just take Lewis' word for it. But it's easy enough to determine--do the terrorists get all the rights of a convicted military person, or no?

685. jexster - 11/28/2001 4:09:16 PM

Former FBI Officials Blast Obergruppenfuehrer Aschroft's New Gestapo Tactics

686. jexster - 11/28/2001 4:13:11 PM

"It's the Perry Mason School of Law Enforcement, where you get them in there and they confess," Walton said of the plan to interview 5,000 Middle Eastern men. "Well, it just doesn't work that way. It is ridiculous. You say, 'Tell me everything you know,' and they give you the recipe to Mom's chicken soup."

687. jexster - 11/28/2001 4:14:23 PM

Welcome to the Kingdom of Moronia!

688. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 4:32:10 PM

Irkheart, Your shameless sophistry is boundless. Your "admonition" was a ridiculous insult and your shameless sophistry is boundless. You called me a "niggling critic" like someone "portraying Patton as a Nazi, kicking a poor American boy when he is down. And, as a result of your vigilance, Patton is benched, and a half million more Jews die needlessly. But at least you feel better."

[I don't recall mentioning Patton, but he didn't kick the American boy when he was down, he slapped an American soldier in his hospital bed. This was a mistake and wasn't Patton's finest hour, but basically I admire Patton, for your information. Mentioning him in the same paragraph with Ashcroft is a desecration of a great American hero. I'll leave it to others to judge the relevance of your Patton analogy to the debate over Ashcroft's tribunals, bugging client-attorney conversations, etc. At any rate I'm proud to join other niggling critics like Patrick Leahy, Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Bob Barr, Anthony Lewis, et al.]

Anyway, shortly after the above "admonition" you had the chutzpah to accuse me of ad hominem jibes at you. As I've said before, we would get farther if you stuck to the issues and skipped the insults and were a bit more honest in your characterizations of others in this forum, their arguments and your own. Debating with you is like trying to grab an eel out of a barrel of oil.

689. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 4:33:12 PM

Irkheart, Your shameless sophistry is boundless. Your "admonition" was a ridiculous insult and your shameless sophistry is boundless. You called me a "niggling critic" like someone "portraying Patton as a Nazi, kicking a poor American boy when he is down. And, as a result of your vigilance, Patton is benched, and a half million more Jews die needlessly. But at least you feel better."

[I don't recall mentioning Patton, but he didn't kick the American boy when he was down, he slapped an American soldier in his hospital bed. This was a mistake and wasn't Patton's finest hour, but basically I admire Patton, for your information. Mentioning him in the same paragraph with Ashcroft is a desecration of a great American hero. I'll leave it to others to judge the relevance of your Patton analogy to the debate over Ashcroft's tribunals, bugging client-attorney conversations, etc. At any rate I'm proud to join other niggling critics like Patrick Leahy, Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch, Bob Barr, Anthony Lewis, et al.]

Anyway, shortly after the above "admonition" you had the chutzpah to accuse me of ad hominem jibes at you. As I've said before, we would get farther if you stuck to the issues and skipped the insults and were a bit more honest in your characterizations of others in this forum, their arguments and your own. Debating with you is like trying to grab an eel out of a barrel of oil.

690. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 4:34:28 PM

Sorry, all, for the double post!

691. mgleason - 11/28/2001 4:37:45 PM

Wonkers,

You need to rent the three BBC mini-series featuring FU's namesake (or read the books by Michael Dobbs). He's merely posting in character.

692. jexster - 11/28/2001 4:43:41 PM

Read December Issue of PS On LINE!!!!

693. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 4:44:22 PM

Maria, I'm a fan of BBC's series featuring Francis Urquhart, and I can see the resemblance. Are you sure the resemblance is intentional?

694. mgleason - 11/28/2001 4:50:24 PM

Well, we could have a case of demonic possession on our hands, W.

695. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 4:51:43 PM

That's more like it! Or reincarnation.

696. arkymalarky - 11/28/2001 5:23:03 PM

FU,

His ineffectiveness can just as easily be attributed to his birth sign or El Nino, but justifiably so? It appears that support for any of the stated theories of the Clinton administration's ineffectiveness - be it my fanciful suggestions or yours - are of equal validity. I shall not press the point further.

You again miss the point. The implication is all that's relevant to the point I'm making. The actual cause of Clinton's actions or anyone else's has nothing to do with how easy it is to make the cheap shot of pinning negative results of a change in policy or administrative actions on public criticism.

This is the last word, if you like. It would have been my last effort anyway. If you don't understand the fundamental problem of pinning blame for an administration's policy failure on public criticism in a democracy, suggesting instead that such criticism is un-American and dangerous and thus is shameful and should not even be expressed, much less that such a suggestion is insulting to one who dares speak his opinion, then I have nothing more to say.

697. arkymalarky - 11/28/2001 5:27:09 PM

PS, there's a difference between stated opinion and legislative policy debates. Surely you see that.

698. Rama - 11/28/2001 6:06:49 PM

I learned from Anthony Lewis on the Leherer News Hour that Bush's order permits military tribunals that do not provide for the same safeguards as provided by the UCMJ.

Yes, but I've read the order, and I don't know why Lewis thinks it will result in a different kind of court.

699. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 7:55:42 PM

Well, I'm not sure either. Are courts martial held in secret? Can the accused choose his own attorney or does he have to take someone who is assigned to him? Can the accused in a court martial call his own witnesses? Does the accused in a court martial have a right to know who the witnesses are against him and to confront them in court? None of these rights is guaranteed by Bush's proposal. However, to be fair, they may be called for in the detailed procedures now being drawn up by the Defense Department.

700. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 7:56:38 PM

Anthony Lewis is a lawyer and a liberal but very smart guy. I assume he knows what he's talking about most of the time!

701. wonkers2 - 11/28/2001 8:01:12 PM

Dusty, I was not aware that it is also correct to call the Prime Minister of Spain, President. However, I do know that he generally calls himself and that he is commonly called Prime Minister. I spent a fair amount of time in Spain and once even got to meet the then Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzales. I have never heard anyone but Bush call Spain's head man "President." He would be well advised to call him Prime Minister like everybody else.

702. jexster - 11/28/2001 8:49:43 PM

mg...

we have nothing more, nothing less than a case of inferiority complexia - a mexican who would be WASP

703. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:09:23 AM

A Mexican lawn jockey?

704. Absensia - 11/29/2001 12:27:23 AM

#701....Wonks, it's entirely possible that CNN was covering for him.

705. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:33:07 AM

What the media whores won't do. I guess I missed the boat, so to speak. My comment was directed to the "Speedy Gonzales" flack for Bush on the Lehrer News Hour tonight who was trying to defend the Bush/Ashcroft attack on the constitution. I forget what his name is--he's a Mexican American lawyer on Bush's staff, I believe in charge of finding black and hispanic lawn jockey candidates for federal judge nominations.

706. mgleason - 11/29/2001 12:35:14 AM

No, it's OK to call him that; Aznar is known as Presidente
del Gobierno del Reino de España.

707. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:36:52 AM

I doubt that Bush could manage anything that long in English, let alone Spanish.

708. mgleason - 11/29/2001 12:41:23 AM

English may have more words than Spanish, but Spanish makes full use of all it has.

709. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:42:44 AM

Es verdad!

710. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 9:22:32 AM

Article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 in part through the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt:

"Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

To put ourselves above the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will make it that much harder to press for human rights in countries where the lack of such rights breeds terrorists.

From letter to NYT by John Pappenheimer, Seattle, Nov. 26, 2001

711. Rama - 11/29/2001 9:55:23 AM

And Catholics believe the Pope. Until some real information is available, I'm afraid I shall have to be a bit more skeptical than you. But thanks for the explaination.

712. Rama - 11/29/2001 9:57:43 AM

I ran across this while looking for something else.

713. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 10:08:16 AM

Interesting! I'll take the British and American civilian court system.

714. jexster - 11/29/2001 10:25:15 AM

Eleven weeks after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, an expanding coalition of lawmakers and civil liberties groups is complaining that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's campaign against terrorism has gone too far.


Criticism of Obergruppenfuehrer Growing

715. jexster - 11/29/2001 10:26:33 AM

The Cato Institute's Roger Pilon said that "some of the means he has recommended go well beyond attention to terrorists."

"What we have here is a classic example of crisis leading to leviathan," said Pilon. "I see in him a person with a greater respect for authority than for liberty, and that's what disturbs me."

716. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 10:29:46 AM

Ashcroft is the worst AG since Mitchell. He is an embarrassment to Bush, but Bush isn't smart enough to recognize it yet.

717. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 10:56:51 AM

All

From Richard Posner:

"The safer the nation feels, the more weight judges will be willing to give to the liberty interest . . . If it is true, therefore, as it appears to be at this writing, that the events of September 11 have revealed the United States to be in much greater jeopardy from international terrorism than had previously been believed - have revealed it to be threatened by a diffuse, shadowy enemy that must be fought with police measures as well as military force - it stands to reason that our civil liberties will be curtailed. They should be curtailed, to the extent that the benefits in greater security outweigh the costs in greater liberty."

arky

Implict in Posner's words is a definition of those benefits - a lessened chance of being incinerated, infected, or otherwise murdered by terrorism. Thus, while "there's a difference between stated opinion and legislative policy debates", the difference is irrelevant to the matter of policy dispute. Be the dispute in committee or on The Mote, it is both legitimate and democratic to state, "I believe your policy will threaten lives." Such is what I said to wonkers, and such is what Posner, Feinstein and Kyl suggest.

wonkers

I find it difficult to respond when you are in such palpable agitation because I carry with me some guilt in having anything to do with your current discomfort. Again, I offer an apology for whatever so vexes you. I remain happy to engage you another time.

718. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 11:36:57 AM

Jexster's Law School Dean on Military Tribunals

719. ronski - 11/29/2001 12:10:24 PM

jexster finding solace from a Cato-ite! Kind of like the GOP last November discovering the equal protection clause.

And it is a shame Richard Posner will never make to the Supreme Court.

720. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:34:16 PM

FU, Fine, I look forward to discussing any issue with you.

721. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 12:48:31 PM

Posner, et al, notwithstanding it's a mistake to adjust our basic legal safeguards in accordance with the way the "nation feels." Avoiding this is one of the main virtues of the role of the Supreme Court in our system of separation of powers. With military tribunals prosecutor, judge and jury are all rolled into one. Efficient, possibly; fair, doubtful; inspires confidence around the world, no. We have regretted past instances where we have adjusted our laws to fit the public mood of fear or hysteria--internment of the Japanese and Italians during WWII; Roosevelt's military execution of 8? German saboteurs; Truman's attempt to seize the steel mills; and the McCarthy hysteria, the after effects of which still afflict the country.

722. ronski - 11/29/2001 12:54:33 PM

Who is regretting the execution of the Nazi saboteurs?

723. ronski - 11/29/2001 1:01:10 PM

(I ask that question not to nitpick, but because I think that among the foregoing list of things to rue it is the example closest to our current predicament.)

724. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 1:03:36 PM

wonkers

"Posner, et al, notwithstanding it's a mistake to adjust our basic legal safeguards in accordance with the way the 'nation feels.'"

I agree, to the extent a feeling is in a vaccuum. But what if the feeling is borne of tangible violence, as is the case here and now?

In other words, are the rights which you deem "shredded" by the Justice Department absolute? Is the Bill of Rights, contrary to Justice Robert Jackson's words, a suicide pact? I'm not sure a compendium of arguable historical errors argues for extremism in the defense of liberty, to the detriment of security concerns during wartime.

Posner, typically and commendably, presupposes the internment example:

"It is true that when we are surprised and hurt, we tend to overreact -but only with the benefit of hindsight can a reaction be separated into its proper and excess layers. In hindsight we know that interning Japanese-Americans did not shorten World War II. But was this known at the time? If not, shouldn't the Army have erred on the side of caution, as it did?"

725. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:04:39 PM

I don't know that anybody regrets the executions, but Roosevelt and the Supreme Court have been criticized for the manner in which the saboteurs were tried and executed. Also, my recollection is that Hoover has come under criticism for some kind of a cover-up or other skulduggery in connection with the case.

726. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:08:59 PM

And as I mentioned previously, the shameful execution for desertion by a military court of a dimwitted and confused serviceman during WWII was documented in a book entitled "The Execution of Private Slovick." This book clearly illustrates the shortcomings of military courts martial.

727. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:15:44 PM

Eddie Slovick was the first American soldier executed for desertion since the Civil War. The prize winning book was written by William Bradford Huie. It was made into a movie starring Martin Sheen. The book, which I read more than 30 years ago, has probably influenced my jaundiced view of military courts more than anthing else.

728. ronski - 11/29/2001 1:16:46 PM

To answer Posner, probably not, given that there was no evidence of a plot by Japanese-Americans or their descendants to commit sabotage. None whatsoever. (Japan itself was trying to figure out a way of delivering biological or chemical weapons to California cities later in the war, but that was not a plot hatched by Americans, to my knowledge.)

But FU's earlier point is commendable (of course, I say that because I made the same point weeks ago), namely, that we have already had acts of terrorism (or sabotage) on our soil, as well as having evidence that additional violence is planned. This alone argues the case for stronger action that what would have been wise in WW2.

729. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 1:17:01 PM

wonkers

Why was Slovick's execution shameful?

730. ronski - 11/29/2001 1:23:54 PM

wonkers,

You might wish to get the book, Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music if you haven't read it already. Amazon has some.

That said, I have no problems with military tribunals in this context, at least not so far. As Kyl said this morning, the rules are being written as we speak. I don't see the need to be so critical before we know exactly how these courts will be run.

I also wonder whether military tribunals will prove the only thing which prevents nuclear destruction of New York, Washington, or Los Angeles.

I think the stakes are indeed that high.

731. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:30:02 PM

Our long run security will be better served by taking the time to try and sentence terrorists in our normal courts in a way that will inspire the continued support and confidence of our allies which is so essential to reducing or eliminating terrorism. There has been no demonstrated need for military courts that could not be satisfied by minor adjustments in our civilian court system (e.g., to accommodate a demonstrated need for secrecy). We have yet to see the detailed procedures for the military tribunals and the extent to which they will be used. If the procedures are drawn carefully and the tribunals are used sparingly they may not be a problem.

You mentioned the Nuremberg trials. I don't know a lot about them, but my impression is that they were done very carefully, they were carried out in public, not in secret, out in secret, and the tribunal was an international one supported by all of our allies. Wasn't the process somewhat similar to the one currently going on in the Hague for Miloscevic, et al. It seems to be working pretty well, somewhat in the tradition of Nuremberg and, as occurs to me as I type, in the tradition of public trial in Israel of Adolph Eichman. There is much to be said for the educational value of public trials. I doubt that a public trial of bin Laden would produce a result like OJ Simpson's trial. But that is one of the risks of our system. I have enough faith in the system that I'm willing to take the risk.

732. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:33:30 PM

By the way I'm somewhat of a fan of Posner. His best decision supported the first amendment rights of a stripper in a honky tonk bar (Bluebell?)in Indiana or Illinois to perform without pasties. It was a masterpiece.

733. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:35:49 PM

Ronski, a good reason for criticizing Bush's executive order now is to try to influence the writing of the guidelines to include practical and fair safeguards.

734. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:38:04 PM

Any trials of September 11 terrorists could be an incredible PR opportunity to show the rest of the world what American democracy is all about. It would be a horrible mistake to let our zeal for quick convictions through secret military trials cause us to miss this opportunity.

735. ronski - 11/29/2001 1:38:50 PM

I am absolutely not willing to take the risk of a public trial with bin Laden or any follower. The difference between our situation today and both Nuremburg and Milosevic is that those on trial were thoroughly vanquished and the threat they and their followers posed to world security eliminated. The opposite is true re: the Islamofascist terrorists. We suspect they are still just about everywhere, and planning the worst things for us they can imagine. We cannot risk undermining our intelligence apparatus, which is already too weak.

736. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:38:55 PM

Any trials of September 11 terrorists could be an incredible PR opportunity to show the rest of the world what American democracy is all about. It would be a horrible mistake to let our zeal for quick convictions through secret military trials cause us to miss this opportunity and to confirm the worst suspicions of those who are on the fence.

737. ronski - 11/29/2001 1:40:53 PM

It would be a horrible mistake to reveal our intelligence sources, something which would have to happen in a thoroughly open trial.

738. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 1:46:06 PM

True, but I'm not sure it would have to happen, or that the trial would have to be "thoroughly open". Haven't there been compromises where such information is revealed only to a panel of judges rather than in open court? I don't know enough about this to discuss it intelligently. But I would prefer a civilian court, with appropriate adjustments, to a military tribunal. And I would prefer a military tribunal based on a law passed by Congress and consistent with the Constitution to one cooked up unilaterally by Ashcroft.

739. CalGal - 11/29/2001 1:50:22 PM

Any trials of September 11 terrorists could be an incredible PR opportunity to show the rest of the world what American democracy is all about.

They don't understand what American democracy is all about. To many, many Muslims, "it has not been proven" means "I don't believe it".

Hence they can say that there is no proof of bin Laden's guilt while prating of the "certainty" that 4000 Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC.

I see nothing wrong with a public trial. I think a televised trial would be a disaster.

Did anyone see the discussion on Greenfield last night? Had three lawyers on--one pro, one con, one pointing out that in fact everyone agrees that the US government won't be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The disagreement arises as to what should be done about that.

740. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 1:58:49 PM

I'm not sure juror sequestration in the Holiday Inn is the answer. In essence. it is an issue of balance, and wonkers, Leahy and others clearly fall jard on the side of liberty interests, even after two months of terrorism and warfare.

I hope Leahy wins the argument in the aftermath. I hope characterizations of Ashcroft and Bush as goons and shredders wins the day in historical context. I hope that when all is said and done, the detentions, tribunals, and additional impingements on civil rights will be deemed to have been a collosal overreach by an authoritarian monolith.

For if that is the future, it means that domestic terrorism of a grand scale will have been but a blip post September 11th.

My own feeling is that there are more and more World Trade Centers to come, of varying sizes and varieties, which may make this discussion almost quaint, a conceit in those heady days when we all thought 9/11 was the last, big gasp.

741. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:01:36 PM

The method is moot if it isn't successful. And I see nothing in Ashcroft's thinking that causes me to believe that secrecy will improve the FBI's hit rate.

742. ronski - 11/29/2001 2:02:21 PM

One nuclear bomb, even a simple dirty bomb, and Americans will be asking that every Middle Easterner be rounded up and held in detention indefinitely. I would err on the side of military tribunals now, then something like that, later.

743. ronski - 11/29/2001 2:10:38 PM

(Actually, one nuclear bomb and we'll have martial law.)

744. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:16:26 PM

I would err on the side of military tribunals now, then something like that, later.


The problem is that you assume one will prevent the other. And that, of course, is why people approve of these things--because they make them feel safe, not because they are actually effective.

I've listed a far more effective way of ensuring that terrorists can't operate here. If we're going to start infringing on rights then let's do it right. This halfass approach won't do anything much except give us the excuse to gun down bin Laden. And we don't need one anyway.

745. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 2:21:48 PM

Military tribunals have numerous practical benefits apart from preventing future terrorist attacks, their "feel good" cache notwithstanding.

What is your non halfass approach?

746. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:30:58 PM

Cachet, isn't it?

Unless you mean they have a whole bunch of stored up good will.

Non-halfassed approach:

1) Must prove legal right to be in this country to drive, fly, rent, or purchase any property. All visa holders can only form contracts until their visa expires and they will all be dated as such. (I include the current restrictions on working.)

2) Temporary visa holders and all visitors must have documented travel plans and approval.

3) All people in this country when asked have to produce identification proving their legal right to be here. (Citizens will have drivers licenses that mark them as citizens).

4) All children going to public or private schools (including daycare) must have parents who are here legally. If parents are visa holders, the school must have the expiration date.

5) All business travel must be approved by licensed businesses. Business border crossings will be handled separately. Only Canadians or Mexicans can enter the country through those borders.

6) Notary public standards tightened significantly, limited to citizens only and must undergo a background check far more stringent.

For starters.

747. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:33:29 PM

Remember that military tribunals only matter after the damage is done. I'm much more interested in preventing the damage in the first place.

The real problem isn't how we control our immigrants, which is relatively easy. I get worried when I see the Muslims raising their citizen kids wearing veils, etc. Citizen terrorists are a whole separate problem and one that is best avoided by not allowing them to be created.

748. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:34:16 PM

I forgot something on #3--if they can't provide it in 24 hours, they are gone, booted, buh-bye.

749. ronski - 11/29/2001 2:34:20 PM

I also think that while it would be nice to keep the Europeans on board, and have increasingly cordial relations with Yemenis, there is a valuable message to be sent by the tribunals. The terrorists use the openness of our society as a major weapon against us.

At the same time, my guess is that the average ill-educated, poverty stricken Islamist on the street couldn't give a fig about our constitution and our rule of law, neither understanding them or particularly liking them if they do understand them. They will in no way be impressed by "open" trials.

We have so far done little to compromise our freedoms. I am walking around freely. I see Muslims here walking around freely. But tribunals say to those who would harm us and those who simply despise us that we will do whatever it takes to protect our security, and not let what they perceive as Western softness and decadence be our undoing.

750. ronski - 11/29/2001 2:37:02 PM

Cachet it is.

751. ronski - 11/29/2001 2:38:55 PM

(And remember that I am speaking here as someone who rues the fact that war is the health of the state. But sometimes, war is necessary.)

752. CalGal - 11/29/2001 2:38:59 PM

My problem with tribunals is limited to their potential for abuse. I think handling terrorists from a military standpoint makes perfect sense. I think they require judicial review, and I frankly see no need to make them all private.

753. jexster - 11/29/2001 3:08:39 PM

The Obergruppen Fuehrer took a walk last night, I kid you not from the Jefferson to the Washington to the Lincoln to the Vietnam Memorial "to reacquaint" himself with the Spirit and Principles of our Founders.

Like Stations of the Cross!

754. jexster - 11/29/2001 3:09:19 PM

Hey FU, what would you man Franco have done?

755. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2001 3:13:13 PM

CalGal

2) Temporary visa holders and all visitors must have documented travel plans and approval.

That's tested and tried. Tourists to the Soviet Union were subject to such restrictions.

756. bubbaette - 11/29/2001 3:19:15 PM

I get worried when I see the Muslims raising their citizen kids wearing veils, etc. Citizen terrorists are a whole separate problem and one that is best avoided by not allowing them to be created.

So would you also make Mennonite Girls refrain from wearing those little baskets on their head or require Amish kids to wear jeans and t-shirts?

757. CalGal - 11/29/2001 3:20:33 PM

"Approval" of either their own government or their employer in this country. Not the US's approval.

But in any event, the issue is security, not control. Besides, the Soviet Union was quite good at controlling access--so to the extent that it has been tested and tried, the test proves it is successful. Has nothing to do with communism.

758. CalGal - 11/29/2001 3:21:43 PM

So would you also make Mennonite Girls refrain from wearing those little baskets on their head or require Amish kids to wear jeans and t-shirts?


No. So long as we agree that Muslims who wear the veil are as "fringe" as the Mennonites and the Amish and live out in the wilds and renounce all American life, it's fine by me.

But you know full well that isn't what is happening here.

759. ronski - 11/29/2001 3:22:06 PM

Let's eave the Mennonite girls alone.

But those Dr. Koop-style beards on Amish guys are really unattractive.

760. ronski - 11/29/2001 3:22:43 PM

leave...

761. bubbaette - 11/29/2001 3:31:51 PM

Not to mention the clodhoppers. Frankly, I think those horses and buggies are an infringment on MY civil rights to burn up the highway.

762. CalGal - 11/29/2001 3:33:32 PM

I just run them down. It's not like they believe in cops. They want the old ways, after all.

763. bubbaette - 11/29/2001 3:37:03 PM

The Mennoites drive autos here in VA (though they tend to drive slow). Don't have any Amish, though there were several communities in the area of Indiana where my grandmother used to live. A real bummer to get behind em on a rural 2-way road with traffic in the opposite direction. But then there were tractors, too and they're not much faster.

764. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2001 4:33:52 PM

CalGal

Has nothing to do with communism.

Of course not. It has to do with totalitarianism.

765. CalGal - 11/29/2001 4:36:34 PM

Right.

Likewise, blowing up a package that has been left unattended is totalitarianism. Not security.

766. CalGal - 11/29/2001 4:38:04 PM

Besides, you missed the primary point--that the Soviets required you to get their approval, and limited your options.

I am saying that a visitor or a visa holder will have to have approval from their government or authorized business and can't vary from their plans without notifying each destination.

767. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2001 4:44:07 PM

Likewise, blowing up a package that has been left unattended is totalitarianism.

That's a very stupid analogy which highlights the weakness of your position,

768. CalGal - 11/29/2001 4:50:35 PM

I wasn't trying to analogize and it's not weak at all. It's entirely reasonable.

20 years ago you couldn't leave a package unattended in the Paris airport or they would blow it up. Americans found it insulting and offensive. But it was a security measure.

Likewise, requiring visitors to have travel plans (that can be changed) says no more than "Look, we're delighted to have you here, but we have a problem with visitors disappearing and not leaving when they are supposed to. You can go anywhere, but we don't want you disappearing. Hence we need to know where you are planning on going."

Simple enough. Find it offensive? Don't come here. If we find the tourism industry takes a big enough hit, we'll just find some other way of tracking you.

769. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2001 5:04:25 PM

CalGal

"Likewise" is not to "analogise"?

Well, I'm not in competition for your semantic games.

770. Rama - 11/29/2001 5:11:17 PM

True, but I'm not sure it would have to happen, or that the trial would have to be "thoroughly open". Haven't there been compromises where such information is revealed only to a panel of judges rather than in open court? I don't know enough about this to discuss it intelligently.

I do, though I haven't found this venue conducive to such discussion.

We have specific law for this, which has been used for domestic terrorism and espionage cases, and the Alexandria federal court has facilities and processes to support such trials. However, there are a lot of risks involved with this procedure, and we have not prosecuted some known spies rather than run the risk of trials. And this strains the court system handling a few cases a year. There is no practical way to scale it up to handle dozens of terrorists.

771. CalGal - 11/29/2001 5:13:19 PM

I don't wish to do semantics either. I am not saying that exploding packages is analogous to totalitarianism. Nor am I saying that exploding packages is analogous to logging travel plans--primarily because I think exploding things is far worse. At least visitors know what's required of them with the travel plans.

Your bleating about Soviet style totalitarianism is nonsense. The Soviet Union did all sorts of things that are entirely within the framing of the US Constitution.

And all of this ignores the point that you still haven't acknowledged twice, now--that the two systems aren't even similar. Or analogous, if that makes you happy.

772. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 5:36:33 PM

The link provided above by Rama to the "Classified Information Procedures Act" is most illuminating. The Act strikes what appears to me a good balance between assuring a fair trial and protecting classified information, broadly defined to include both defense information and information affecting U.S. relations with other countries. It provides for in camera hearings before a federal judge and exclusion of classified information affecting the security of the United States. No doubt the procedure isn't perfect, but it seems practical and workable and fair to defendants in criminal proceedings.

773. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 6:03:38 PM

FU: Why was Pvt Slovik's execution shameful?

That's a fair question. That was my conclusion after reading Wm. Bradford Huie's book 30-some years ago. My recollection is that Slovik was confused and not very bright. He didn't clearly understand the implications of his actions. He may not have known that his actions constituted "desertion," or that he was subject to execution for them. His actions may have been in somewhat of a gray area rather than a crystal clear case of desertion. I'm not sure about this.

According to a comment from the DVD blurb for the movie: "It is made clear throughout the film that no one, neither the military brass nor Slovik himself, truly believed that the private would ever face a firing squad; the usual custom was to postpone the execution until after the war, then to reduce the sentence to a long prison term. Thanks to an unfortunate chain of misunderstandings and snafus, Slovik ended up dying by gunfire in a lonely French courtyard--a fact long withheld from the public. (Slovik's wife learned of her husband's true fate for the first time from author William Bradford Huie."

Slovik was from Detroit and as I recall the book was published around the time I moved to Michigan so I picked up the book and read it. It was a fascinating story with a sad ending and not one to reinforce one's faith in military justice.

774. wonkers2 - 11/29/2001 6:29:17 PM

According to Amazon, 14 of William Bradford Huie's 21 non-fiction and fiction books are still in print. They include "The Americanization of Emily," "The Revolt of Mamie Stover," two books on Martin Luther King's asassination, one on the Seabees and several others. Apparently the one on Pvt.Slovik was his most successful book. He was more of a reporter than a writer of fiction.

775. jexster - 11/29/2001 7:52:57 PM

"C'mon down," says John Ashcroft.


Secret memo leaked today, says if you come on down you be goin down....

Traffic tickets?

indefinite detention, double secret probation even

776. mgleason - 11/30/2001 1:43:26 AM

I was reading this year's State Department Human Rights and Practices report on Iran, and was struck by some familiar criticisms:

In July [2000] 10 Iranian Jews were tried and convicted on charges of illegal contacts with Israel, and sentenced to between 2 and 13 years in prison. Three others were acquitted. The trial procedures were unfair, and violated numerous internationally recognized standards of due process.

. . . . . . .

The trial of 13 Iranian Jews on charges related to espionage for Israel was marked throughout by a lack of due process. The defendants were held for over 1 year without being charged formally or given access to lawyers. The trial was closed, and the defendants were not allowed to choose their own lawyers.

777. wonkers2 - 11/30/2001 6:51:53 AM

Just substitute United States for Iran and Arab-Americans for Iranian Jews and you have the Ashcroft tribunals.

778. Francis Urquhart - 11/30/2001 10:24:03 AM

There are significant differences between the two forms of jurisprudence, but to Cal's earlier point, many parts of Iran probably have running water. I don't think that fact makes our utilization of running water per se inappropriate.

779. Francis Urquhart - 11/30/2001 10:29:36 AM

Private Slovik

It is a sad story. But he did desert twice.

780. Rama - 11/30/2001 10:33:59 AM

I'm struck by the moral equivelence of "illegal contacts with Isreal by Jews" and "killing thousands of people in New York because infidels are in Saudi Arabia".

The military tribunals are not being proposed for people charged with mere murder or rape. They are proposed as a weapon to fight those who would otherwise be likely to use our own justice system as a weapon against us.

781. wonkers2 - 11/30/2001 4:16:58 PM

Thanks for the link on Pvt. Slovik. Isn't there a legal principle which is supposed to prevent disparate treatment or punishment under the law? As your link says: In WWII 21,049 American servicemen were convicted of desertion in military courts. Of those, 49 were sentenced to death. But only Eddie Slovik was actually executed. Reading the information in the FU's link brings back Huie's recounting in excruciating detail the handling of Slovik's case as it wended its way up the military hierarchy Eisenhower. His case is a perfect illustration of one of the defects in military courts cited in today's NYT OP-ed by, who else, Anthony Lewis:

"To the contrary, Hague defendants like Slobodan Milosevic are entitled to public trials before INDEPENDENT JUDGES, and to LAWYERS OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. The Bush military trials are to be in secret, before OFFICIALS WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO OFFICIALS BRINGING THE CHARGES; DEFENDANTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PICK THEIR OWN LAWYERS. And, unlike the Hague defendants, they may be executed.

How many times have I heard the phrase "independent judiciary" cited as a cardinal principal of any good judiciary system. When judges are subordinate to presidents, attorneys general, prosecutors or generals, it's hard for them to dispense justice. And even harder for the results of their efforts to be perceived as just.

782. wonkers2 - 11/30/2001 4:18:28 PM

erratum: as it wended its way up the military hierarchy [to] Eisenhower.

783. ronski - 11/30/2001 4:21:23 PM

But he did desert twice.




As John Wayne said, "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."

784. Francis Urquhart - 11/30/2001 4:24:45 PM

wonkers

I don't think the concept of disparate treatment applies in a military or criminal context unless the disparate treatment is based on a prohibited characteristic (i.e., executing Slovik because he is white). As his execution was pre-Title VII, that justification would have been legal as well.

Eisenhower wanted to make an example of him and given his persistence in desertion (and, it appears, some measure of cowardice), he was deemed a useful example.

On the general topic, two good links --

Jacob Weisberg Totes Up the Ashcroft/DOJ Scorecard

Lincoln Makes Ashcroft Look Like Kuby

785. wonkers2 - 11/30/2001 4:26:14 PM

All the more reason to stick to civilian courts!

786. Rama - 11/30/2001 6:10:55 PM

All the more reason to stick to civilian courts!

Civilian courts have executed many more people than military courts, for lesser grounds than desertion, and with clear disparity of results.

787. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 11:22:48 AM

Right, Rama. The Resident in Thief knows all about them.

788. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 11:24:07 AM

Hey Francis, do you know about the The Execution of Private Slovick, a film Frank Sinatra wanted to make but didn't?

789. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 11:18:59 AM

TRIBUNAL V. COURT-MARTIAL By Wm. Glaberson NYT 12-2

Former military lawyers say they're angered by a public perception fed recently by the top White House lawyer, that the tribunals authorized by Bush are merely wartime versions of American courts-martial, a routine part of military life with a longstanding reputation for openness and procedural fairness.

IN FACT THE TRIBUNALS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM COURTS-MARTIAL, the lawyers say, adding that confusion between the two has distorted the debate over the tribunals and unfairly denigrated military justice.

"It bothers me that people are thinking we try thousands of people this way in the courts-martial system," said Ronald Meister, a NY lawyer and former Navy lawyer and judge. "We do nothing of the sort."

John Cooke, a retired Army judge who is chairman of the ABA's committee on armed forces law, said military courts had been tainted by association with the tribunals, which many commentators, politicians and civil libertarians criticized as an effort to find a foolproof shortcut to a guilty verdict.

"There's been a lot of talk about military kangaroo courts," Cooke said. "Having grown up in the system, I'm offended by it, because it provides more than adequate due process for the men and women in our military service."

Standard military courts resemble civilian courts in many ways, Cooke said. He added they offer many of the fundamental protections that critics say the president ignored in his order authorizing the military tribunals. COURTS-MARTIAL, FOR EXAMPLE ARE GOVERNED BY RULES OF EVIDENCE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN CIVILIAN COURTS. They give defendants full rights to appeal a conviction, require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and require a unanimous decision to impose the death penalty.

BUT THOSE AND MANY OTHER PROTECTIONS WERE MISSING FROM THE SKETCHY OUTLINE OF THE THE TRIBUNALS PROPOSED IN THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER.

790. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 11:26:01 AM

Cont'd

Some lawyers say such contrasts show how different the two systems are. They say the administration seems unaware that trials that appear to include shortcuts to win convictions may raise suspicions around the world.

Edward F. Sherman, a former Army lawyer who was until recently the dean of Tulane Law School said a prominent example was that under the president's order, defendants in the tribunals might not be permitted to select their own lawyers. Defendants in courts-martial are allowed to do so.

Mr. Sherman said that and MANY OTHER OMISSIONS raised questions about how the trials would be perceived.

"If it appears they're assigning lawyers and just going through the steps and then imposing the death penalty," he said, "there would be questions around the world about whether these kinds of trials comport with the BASIC DUE PROCESS WE EXPECT IN OUR SYSTEM."

791. ronski - 12/2/2001 11:27:22 AM

Thomas Friedman: Rights in the Real World

792. jexster - 12/2/2001 12:09:56 PM

Justice Deformed - Bush's Assault on the Constitution

793. jexster - 12/2/2001 12:11:27 PM

The military tribunals authorized by President Bush have little relation to actual military justice. Under normal military law, trials are not closed to the public, defendants have a right to review all the evidence presented against them, and they cannot be sentenced to death without a unanimous decision by the officers who sit as judges. Defendants also can appeal their cases to higher military courts, and to the Supreme Court. The Bush courts are free to proceed in secret, to withhold evidence from defendants and to deliver capital sentences if two-thirds of the judges consent.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that under the administration's order, the president's power to insist on military justice is not limited to accused terrorists who are captured overseas. The order's breadth is astonishing, allowing for the indefinite incarceration and trial of any non-citizen the president deems to be a member of Al Qaeda, to be involved in international terrorism of any type, or to be harboring terrorists. After Sept. 11, Americans were introduced to any number of homeowners who sheltered the men who were about to become hijackers, with no realization that they were anything but students. The scope of these powers should make the potential for abuse clear. The fact that the administration drew them that way should undermine confidence in its self-restraint.

794. ronski - 12/2/2001 12:12:53 PM

I go with Friedman over Sulzberger. Friedman understands the situation better.

795. dusty - 12/2/2001 12:15:31 PM

I agree

796. ronski - 12/2/2001 12:17:09 PM

What are we, dusty, like nine out of ten times in the same camp?

797. jexster - 12/2/2001 12:25:06 PM

WASHINGTON - In the weeks following Sept. 11, former Deputy Solicitor General Philip Lacovara was among those urging the Bush administration to consider using military tribunals to try suspected terrorists.

But recently Lacovara said he was surprised at how far the Bush administration had gone.

"The order basically says the president can designate anybody in certain categories to go before a military tribunal," said Lacovara, now a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Chicago's Mayer, Brown & Platt. "I think even those of us supportive of the concept of a military tribunal think it makes sense to confine its jurisdiction to the leaders of terrorist organizations." Lacovara is not the only one wondering if the deck is stacked a little too forcefully against defendants.

"These are extreme circumstances, and I think the president's action is not unreasonable," says former Secretary of the Army Togo West Jr., a lawyer at D.C.'s Covington & Burling. "On the other hand, it is a little surprising they would settle on less than a unanimous vote to impose the death penalty."

Opponents are more direct in their criticism.

"Our society has grown to a point where we shouldn't be afraid of putting those responsible through a criminal trial for the world to see," says former Marine judge advocate and prominent military defense lawyer Charles Gittins. "My concern about the executive order is that it basically leaves it up to the accuser whether suspects will get due process, and then it strips away any opportunity to challenge the proceeding in federal court."


The Recorder/American Legal Media

798. jexster - 12/2/2001 12:36:07 PM

So go with Friedman Ronsk. You don't go anywhere.

Do not get me wrong.... His draconian measures go against our fundamental notion that people have a right to be let alone by government when there is no evidence that they have committed a crime and, if there is evidence, to be charged and tried in public, with judicial oversight, not in some secret proceeding.

The rest of his column consists of "Terrorists suck"

799. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 12:51:36 PM

That's the longest editorial I ever recall seeing in the N.Y. Times. It's a powerful indictment of Bush and Ashcroft. As many predicted, Ashcroft is turning out to be a menace to the country as Attorney General and an enbarrassment that Bush doesn't need and could easily have avoided by appointing a more middle-of-the-road person. The physical and vocal resemblance between Ashcroft Joe McCarthy is uncanny.

800. ronski - 12/2/2001 12:55:24 PM

Poppycock.

801. ronski - 12/2/2001 12:59:08 PM

As was just said on CNN, there are some in this country who seem to want bin Laden read his Miranda rights and federal judges in Washington to issue search warrants before alliance forces enter al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan.

802. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:02:40 PM

Then there's jexster, who apparently thinks that Mohammed Atta met that Iranian diplomat to discuss Moslem countries chances in the World Cup.

803. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 1:04:41 PM

That's a bit of an exaggeration. But if our principles of justice are so good why should we abandon them for accused foreigners? What's the philosophical or legal basis for using one method for trying foreigners and another for citizens?

804. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:07:34 PM

Citizens and foreigners are never afforded the same rights. Citizens can enter (return to) our country at will. Foreigners need approval to do so. Should it be otherwise?

805. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:08:14 PM

(approval: visas, etc.)

806. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:12:47 PM

"Then there's jexster, who apparently thinks that Mohammed Atta met that Iranian diplomat to discuss Moslem countries chances in the World Cup."

Strawman fallacy.

807. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:15:10 PM

"Citizens and foreigners are never afforded the same rights. Citizens can enter (return to) our country at will. Foreigners need approval to do so. Should it be otherwise?"

Holy leaps of logic Batman!

Foreigners do not have the same rights does not mean that they have none.

808. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 1:15:12 PM

All accused on trial for capital crimes should have identical rights. What basis is there for distinguishing among them?

809. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:17:21 PM

Speaking of (un)holy leaps of logic, who ever said foreigners have no rights?

810. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:17:24 PM

There is none Wonk which is why there's so much straw on the floor this morning.

Ronski, Chief Judge, Star Chamber

811. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:18:22 PM

Here you go Ronski...

That's a bit of an exaggeration. But if our principles of justice are so good why should we abandon them for accused foreigners? What's the philosophical or legal basis for using one method for trying foreigners and another for citizens?

804. ronski - 12/2/01 6:07:34 PM

Citizens and foreigners are never afforded the same rights. Citizens can enter (return to) our country at will. Foreigners need approval to do so. Should it be otherwise?

812. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:18:52 PM

There is a long tradition of treating opponents in war differently from criminals in peacetime.

There shouldn't be, all of a sudden?

813. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:21:04 PM

jexster,

Precisely where in that post do I claim foreigners have no rights? Can you understand the difference between "no rights" and "(not) the same rights"? If not, it's hopeless talking with you.

814. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 1:23:34 PM

There was also a long tradition of slavery in this country which didn't make it right.

The Nuremberg trials after WWII were very different from what Ashcroft is now proposing to do. So are the trials of accused Serbs currently going on in The Hague. So was the Eichman trial in Israel.

815. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:28:21 PM

Why should I have to paraphrase what is crystal clear Ronski.

Wonk asked "What's the philosophical or legal basis for using one method for trying foreigners and another for citizens?"

You answered "Citizens and foreigners are never afforded the same rights"

Now let's clean up the mess you have made...

By your logic (foreigners should not be tried as citizens are tried):

- no right to select counsel
- secret trials
- suspension of habeas corpus
- no right to confront accusers
- 2/3 death penalty vote

816. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:33:38 PM

And the "long tradition" argument is equally specious...

These secret tribunals would not operate merely against battlefield combatants, where a plausible justification could be made. They would also be used to try civilians in the United States itself, where the federal district courts are open and operating.

Determinations of guilt or innocence will not be governed by the requirement of unanimity. Rather, a two-thirds vote of a panel of officers, selected from within the chain of command, will determine guilt as well as punishment, including the death penalty.

These aren't military courts, they are in terrorem courts whose only purpose is to intimidate and protect the intimidators.

817. jexster - 12/2/2001 1:39:13 PM

Not surprisingly, there's great sympathy in America for hunting down terrorists, convicting them of their crimes, and meting out heavy-duty punishment. I share those objectives. Indeed, if I had Osama bin Laden in my crosshairs, I would gladly pull the trigger. That said, I also have great sympathy for the Constitution, which safeguards the personal liberties that sustain a free society, like the right to due process. The Bill of Rights, after all, is more than scrap paper. And it applies to "persons," not just U.S. citizens.

That's one reason why President George W. Bush's most recent executive order about military tribunals is so troublesome. The president has declared an "extraordinary emergency," which supposedly empowers him to order military trials of non-U.S. citizens - even if they are arrested here, are tried here, and reside here legally. Bush need only assert that he has "reason to believe" the non-citizen is involved in international terrorism intended to have "adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy or economy." Presto, the suspect's constitutional rights vanish, along with our 200-year tradition of respect for the rule of law. Sorry, but we must have different rules for legal aliens who are arrested in the United States. For them, a military tribunal is truly unamerican.

Here's how the new executive order works: The president ordains who will be tried by the military tribunals. Then Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld appoints a panel to decide the case. He sets the rules, including how many members will be on the panel, what qualifications they must meet, what standard of proof will be needed to convict, and what type of evidence can be considered. There will be no judicial review. Only Bush or Rumsfeld will have authority to overturn a decision.

Cato Institute

818. ronski - 12/2/2001 1:55:42 PM

Because it is clear only to you. As long as you maintain that "not the same rights" and "no rights" are the same thing, it is fruitless to talk to you about this matter.

To see you even use the word "logic" is getting funnier by the moment.

As for your post 816, which actually makes an argument one can identify, the distinction here is that we are at war on places other than the traditional battlefield. Or, to put it another way, that the homefront is the battlefield as much as Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf.

And as for your repeating ad nauseum the preliminary proposed rules of the tribunals, please be assured I know those already, and have more than a five-second memory.

819. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:02:02 PM

Well then try answering Wonk's question again!

What rights don't they have and what rights do they have?

Sheesh.

And what does it matter that you have a six second instead of a five second memory?

The issue is whether George Bush has the right to establish Kangaroo courts.

"this isn't a traditional war" is vapid.

So what?

820. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:07:14 PM

"the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 2500 (2001)

821. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:17:51 PM

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government." 18 19
The Supreme Court made clear the stark choice that would face our nation if military rule was not expanded beyond the narrow circumstances permitted by the Constitution, but was permitted without Congressional authorization and where the civil courts were open, and their process, unobstructed....Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish


- Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120-21 (1866).

822. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:24:00 PM

Exactly how does this "new warfare" change anything?

The government made the same argument In Duncan v. Kahanamoku 327 U.S. 304 (1946) where the constitutionality of continuing martial law in Hawaii was challenged. The government insisted that the invention of nuclear weapons "changed everything", that our quaint 18th Century constitution really wasn't designed for the modern age.

The Court recognized bullshit when it saw it.

"That excuse is no less unworthy of our traditions when used in this day of atomic warfare or at a future time when some other type of warfare may be devised." Id. at 330-31 (Murphy, J., concurring).

823. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:25:50 PM

For Ronski's "libertarianism" is a selective ideology.

When it comes to matters of the penis, Ronski wraps himself in the constitution.

824. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:29:27 PM

Star Chamber? fine but don't mess with the privacy rights of my privates eh Ronsk?


And when it comes to his FreeMusketeer defense of the right to bear Uzis, heaven forbid let's re-write the damned thing.

Well I think the straw is cleaned up now.

825. ronski - 12/2/2001 3:15:09 PM

jexster,

Try not being a complete idiot. My positions on the issues, as people with some brains, like Rask, have acknowledged, vary from case to case for reasons I have been happy to explain, all the while falling within a basic framework of libertarianism, classical liberalism, equal protection, laissez-faire, rule of law, and most importantly a general disinclination to the initiation of force, while maintaining the total acceptance of a right to self-defense, both for the individual and for the nation (state) as a whole.

And also you might wish to consider concealing your ignorance of libertarians, whose positions on this matter vary widely, which you would know if you bothered to read anything that did not already support your views.

826. ronski - 12/2/2001 3:16:14 PM

The penis reference is beyond comprehension, btw.

827. ronski - 12/2/2001 3:19:14 PM

Furthermore, jexster, it is clear that while most people here, like wonkers, argue from a recognized set of principles, you are primarily a political hack. If President Gore's attorney general were asking for military tribunals, you'd be defending it, without a doubt.

828. ronski - 12/2/2001 3:26:12 PM

Lastly, this most certainly is not traditional warfare, and is the entirely point. This is stateless war.

You claim going with Friedman means going nowhere. Well, two thirds of the American people disagree with you and support tribunals, and only one quarter agree with you, according to the latest CNN poll, so I think you are wrong on this one as well.

I have no doubt that as the final rules are created there will be modifications. I will wait to see what exactly what they are. I imagine the administration may back down on some points, but I am very glad they are taking as tough a stand as they are, and so are the majority of Americans.

829. CalGal - 12/2/2001 3:52:19 PM

Well, two thirds of the American people disagree with you and support tribunals, and only one quarter agree with you, according to the latest CNN poll, so I think you are wrong on this one as well.


Surely you're not claiming that majority support makes something right? That's so not you; did I miss the sarcasm?

Not to say that I don't agree with your general assessment of Jex.

830. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 3:58:16 PM

Cal is correct. The one of the Supreme Court's and the Constitution's most important functions is to stop mass hysteria from prevailing over unpopular views or individuals.

831. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 3:58:46 PM

Cal is correct. One of the Supreme Court's and the Constitution's most important functions is to stop mass hysteria from prevailing over unpopular views or individuals.

832. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 3:59:35 PM

Sorry. #830 can be deleted.

833. ronski - 12/2/2001 6:13:12 PM

No, Cal, of course not. I don't believe for a second that majority support of something wrong makes it right. I was answering jexster's prediction (tied to Thomas Friedman's column today supporting Bush) that the military tribunals plan is going nowhere. With so much public support, I expect it to stand, in some form. (I also think it is more or less the right thing to do, however.)

And I have said previously that I think it is premature to judge the tribunal rules, since the president's executive order was the first step and that much, much fine tuning is going on as we speak, so to speak.

834. ronski - 12/2/2001 6:23:57 PM

wonkers2: All accused on trial of capital crimes should have identical rights. What basis is there for distinguishing among them?

The distinction here is that we are not talking about civilian crimes. We are talking about acts of war. The United States was attacked 9/11 in several acts of stateless war, and is under threat of more.

835. CalGal - 12/2/2001 6:31:12 PM

Has anyone posted about the American (supposed) who was fighting for the Taliban? Isn't that treason, or is that reserved for selling the countries' secrets?

836. judithathome - 12/2/2001 6:42:49 PM

Isn't that treason, or is that reserved for selling the countries' secrets?

I don't think it is just reserved for selling secrets but even if it were, I'm sure Ashcroft would change it.

837. judithathome - 12/2/2001 6:43:24 PM

Toys; sorry.

838. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 6:43:46 PM

It would be treason according to the Constitution's definition. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. I don't know what the US proposes to do about him.

839. judithathome - 12/2/2001 6:43:57 PM

Okay, help me out here...

840. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 6:44:08 PM

oops.

841. CalGal - 12/2/2001 6:48:43 PM

Get your head out of your ass, Judith. I realize it's hard to stop from blaming everything on him. After all, Ashcroft is a authoritarian nightmare in comparison to the Taliban. That's why it's so reasonable for a suburban rich kid to run off to fight for Afghanistan and kill American soldiers, right? I can see why you're worried about the poor dear.

842. Rama - 12/2/2001 6:48:46 PM

Try not being a complete idiot.

I dont' believe jexter is either an idiot or a political hack. I believe he is insane.

Wonkers is a hack. Military trials are horribly unjust, until he finds out that there may be a distinction between military tribunals and other military courts. Suddenly, people who speak up for military courts are good sources.

843. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 6:50:05 PM

Take that crap to the Inferno, Cal. And don't give me any of your "that post has content in it" jive, either.

844. Rama - 12/2/2001 6:51:27 PM

Isn't that treason, or is that reserved for selling the countries' secrets?

Selling secrets is espionage, a completely different crime.

845. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 6:52:36 PM

It's also treason, if you're a citizen of the US.

846. CalGal - 12/2/2001 6:54:35 PM

Arky, unless you tell Ronski the same thing, you're out of luck. "Try not to be a complete idiot" and "Get your head out of your ass" are not sufficiently different to warrant chastising one but not the other without your fondness for one of the targets and your dislike of one of the perpetrators coming into play.

In any event, the point is that Ashcroft wouldn't be much involved in the issue if it is treason, would he? That's Congress.

But far too many hacks have gotten it into their heads that Ashcroft is the demon, so he must be blamed for everything. Whether it makes sense or not.

847. CalGal - 12/2/2001 6:56:15 PM

Also, I said nothing of posts having content being relevant to your being able to move or not, so don't pull arguments out of your ass when you can't understand the real one.

848. CalGal - 12/2/2001 7:00:38 PM

Treason

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

So Congress just punishes treason; it seems to be tried in court? But it's not like Ashcroft or anyone else can decide to change the definition. No, folks, you'll just have to go back to wailing about the other iniquities.

849. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 7:04:07 PM

I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. I told you to cut it out, and I meant it. If you're not clear what I mean, I mean the unprovoked hatefulness designed to stifle discussion. The examples you give are of two people engaged actively in a dialogue. That you don't see the difference in that and what you did is your problem. Your own personal sense of consistent application is irrelevant.

Any other comments you have on the matter can be taken elsewhere.

850. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 7:05:02 PM

Treason is a crime against the country, and is thus under Ashcroft's power to deal with.

851. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 7:07:10 PM

Declaring the punishment of treason is not necessarily the same as trying and convicting a traitor, but it does indicate they have the power to determine what kind of punishment can be dealt out to a traitor.

852. CalGal - 12/2/2001 7:12:03 PM

If you're not clear what I mean, I mean the unprovoked hatefulness designed to stifle discussion. The examples you give are of two people engaged actively in a dialogue.

Ha. Right. I didn't "design" anything. And don't tell me to take comments elsewhere when you're in the thread commenting right along. I made one comment, it was no different from Ronski's, and the only person who exacerbated it was you. Shut up about it and lo! it will be over.

As for Ashcroft, I've already corrected myself about Congress (before you noticed, in fact) but it is not in his domain to define treason.

It takes a pretty determinedly warped view of a hack to wail for the rights of a monstrous little fuck who leaves America to fight for the Taliban and then against his own country and somehow end up with it all being Ashcroft's fault.

For that matter, I'm still not sure how the tribunals got put on his list of sins.

853. CalGal - 12/2/2001 7:12:52 PM

Declaring the punishment of treason is not necessarily the same as trying and convicting a traitor,

Uh. Yeah. That's why I posted it. As a correction to my previous comment.

854. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 7:19:17 PM

Grow up.

855. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 7:31:09 PM

Most adult Americans should understand that those who show concern about the consistent application of the Constitution and the maintenance of the Balance of Powers are not one whit concerned about the rights of terrorists who deserve the full extent of the punishments available. String them up if due process has been followed and they're known to be guilty.

856. dusty - 12/2/2001 7:54:17 PM

I back arky on this - let's get back to discussing civil liberties. (And lest anyone be badly deluded, the right to post whatever you want, wherever you want is not one of our civil liberties.)

857. Rama - 12/2/2001 7:58:11 PM

It's also treason, if you're a citizen of the US.

You are mistaken. They are different crimes. Espionage is one of the things one may do when committing treason, but then, so are murder and sabotage, murder, sabotage and treason are different crimes.

It is quite possible for a U.S. citizen to commit espionage without committing treason.

858. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 8:02:07 PM

Espionage is one of the things one may do when committing treason, but then, so are murder and sabotage, murder, sabotage and treason are different crimes.

Obviously. That's what I said. It is a treasonous act if you are a citizen, giving enemies "aid and comfort," it's not if you aren't, and either way it's a crime in its own right.

859. arkymalarky - 12/2/2001 8:03:11 PM

It is not possible for a US citizen to commit espionage without committing treason according to the defininition of treason.

860. Rama - 12/2/2001 8:19:05 PM

It is not possible for a US citizen to commit espionage without committing treason according to the defininition of treason.

It is possible both by definition and by law. In fact, treason is quite rare, while espionage is unfortunately almost routine.

861. ronski - 12/2/2001 8:30:17 PM

Rama,

I have to say that I think jexster is not actually insane.

Manic?

Yes.

But as Joe E. Brown said, "Nobody's perfect."

862. wonkers2 - 12/2/2001 10:56:44 PM

And you, Ramadong, are what we used to call a newbie. And newbies are well advised to argue what ever they want but wait for a while before calling names or at least wait until someone first calls them names. You are a Maxwell T. Smartass little weenie warrant officer.

863. Rama - 12/3/2001 9:52:17 AM

I am not calling anybody names. I am merely following the conversation, and explaining my view. Watching jexter's reaction to the September 11 attacks has caused me to doubt his sanity, in the legal sense, of knowing the difference between right and wrong.

I already explained why I think you are a hack.

In both cases, I am only making an assessment based upon what is posted.

Incidentally, Army CI agents, in addition to having investigative authority for persons subject to the UCMJ, are also authorized to investigate anyone who had committed one of the four national security crimes: espionage, sabotage, sedition and treason. Of course, in US the FBI has primary jurisdiction for those crimes. But the Army goes a lot of other places.

864. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 10:30:44 AM

Wow! That's impressive.

But you are a slow learner. From your very first posts you started personal attacks and you continue. Why don't you just state your opinions on the issues, and leave your opinions about others in this forum out of the discussion? Name calling doesn't shed light on the discussion. You think I'm a hack and Jexter's insane. I think you are a little peanut brained asshole, probably a high school dropout. Why don't we leave it at that.

865. ronski - 12/3/2001 11:43:48 AM

The Case for Military Tribunals

(You may need to register, but it's free.)

866. bubbaette - 12/3/2001 12:22:49 PM

I think that the article misses the point. The issue, in my view, is not about providing trial by jury to combattants holed up in a cave in afghanistan. It's about arresting people in the U.S. and holding them indefinately without bringing charges, monitoring their conversations with their attorneys or not allowing them attorneys in the first place.

It certainly muddies the waters to speak as if those objecting to the proposals for military tribunals were talking about wanting to give a jury trial to everyone carrying a gun in afghanistan. But that's not the case. My objections are to treating people in this country you SUSPECT of terrorism (based on what? We don't know -- it would be a threat to national security to let that cat out of the bag.) to a different standard of justice. It seems to me that the writer could use the same arguments to deny due process to any group on the "wanted" lsit. Fear of retribution against jurors? Wouldn't that also apply to the mob and street gangs?

867. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2001 1:53:31 PM

I have a question. Are closed trials (not open to the public) in regular courts possible under the US constitution?

868. CalGal - 12/3/2001 2:27:25 PM

You can have trials closed to the press, and I think you can have a closed courtroom. But you have to have a court transcript.

869. bubbaette - 12/3/2001 2:43:54 PM

As a general rule, no, trials are open.

870. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2001 2:45:00 PM

And is this transcript public? What I'm thinking about is the need for the Army and the CIA to protect their sources and intelligence gathering methods. Has this been cited as an argument for the military courts?

871. bubbaette - 12/3/2001 2:50:04 PM

Yes, it's been cited as an argument. Which, if it's an issue, is a valid reason to close the courtroom and a judge could make that determination just as he would for other types of cases.

872. CalGal - 12/3/2001 2:54:08 PM

Oh, I agree as a general rule. But you can request that they be closed to the press.

A few comments on that article:

After surrender or capture, a soldier can be parked for the rest of the war, in humane conditions, to prevent him from returning to the fight. His detention does not depend on being charged with a crime. Though most al Qaeda members do not rise even to the level of POWs--they have trampled on the qualifying rules of wearing distinctive insignia and observing the laws of war--they can be detained by the same authority for the duration of the conflict.

Actually, that makes them spies, does it not? Isn't that what you call combatants who don't identify themselves as military?

One other thing I've been mulling: in other wars, we assume that the soldiers are just cogs in a wheel; their combat duties a matter of national requirement, not of choice. But here it is a matter of choice. So we can never actually let them go, whether the "war" is over or not.

873. thoughtful - 12/3/2001 2:54:15 PM

Hubby has started referring to Ashcroft as Himmler.

My understanding from someone more knowledgable than I is that the key difference between a military tribunal and a regular trial is the military starts with the presumption of guilt so the burden of proof is on the defense.

874. Rama - 12/3/2001 7:12:18 PM

I have a question. Are closed trials (not open to the public) in regular courts possible under the US constitution?

Yes, we have a specific statute that governs such a trial in order to protect national security. However, it is quite difficult to execute. It has been used in the case of individual spies, where the method of detecting the spy was not a matter that needed protection.

875. Rama - 12/3/2001 7:16:14 PM

Actually, that makes them spies, does it not? Isn't that what you call combatants who don't identify themselves as military?

Not automatically. In a war zone, it is lawful to treat a combatant who does not identify himself as such as a spy, but that does not mean that a fighter who hides his identity is a spy.

One other thing I've been mulling: in other wars, we assume that the soldiers are just cogs in a wheel; their combat duties a matter of national requirement, not of choice. But here it is a matter of choice.

More than that, there can be no peace treaty to end the war, unless it is entered into with each fighter individually.

876. Rama - 12/3/2001 7:17:16 PM

My understanding from someone more knowledgable than I is that the key difference between a military tribunal and a regular trial is the military starts with the presumption of guilt so the burden of proof is on the defense.

There does not appear to be any particular reason to believe this is true.

877. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 7:23:00 PM

Pelle, see the link provided by Rama in #770 above to the Classified Information Procedures Act which strikes a good balance between fairness to the defendant and the concern to protect sources of intelligence. There is absolutely no need for Ashcroft to reinvent the wheel. He's merely trying to take a big shortcut.

878. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 7:31:09 PM

Thoughtful, all the differences between ordinary military trials under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Bush/Ashcroft military tribunals will not become entirely clear until the detailed procedures are written and published. For a discussion of this see summary of NYT article in #789, above. There are several important differences between ordinary military trials and trials in civilian courts and apparently even greater differences between ordinary military trials and Bush's tribunals. This has been the source of considerable confusion. Some commentators have said that Bush and Ashcroft have intentionally allowed or encouraged the American public to assume erroneously that the tribunals will provide the same safeguards as courts martial for American servicemen and women.

879. CalGal - 12/3/2001 8:35:53 PM

There is absolutely no need for Ashcroft to reinvent the wheel.

Why is Ashcroft being blamed for this again?

880. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 8:46:23 AM

Do you think Bush dreamed up the tribunals and wrote the order on his own?

881. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 8:56:18 AM

Minor Differences between Bush Tribunals and U.S. Military Court Procedures--Anthony Lewis Op-ed 12-4

"The American military justice system is the finest in the world," Mr.Gonzalez (Bush's White House legal adviser)said, suggesting tht the Bush military commissions will be the same as courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But they will be very different.

For example, the jury in a regular military court must be unanimous to impose a death sentence. Mr. Bush's tribunals require only a two-thirds vote of commisssion members "present at the time of the vote," and two could impose the death penalty: less than half the commission.

Court-martial judgemnts are appealable on all issues of fact and law. The courts use strict rules of evidence comparable to those in civilian courts, as against the relaxed standards alowed by Mr. Bush. Court martial defendants have the right to choose their own lawyer; the Bush order gives no such assurance.

....The Bush tribunal order,The Economist of London says this week, "is deeply disturbing...When so much is going so well for the U. S., and deservedly so, it would be foolish to hand Mr. bin Laden such an unnecessary gift."

[The Economist isn't exactly a liberal rag.]

882. Rama - 12/4/2001 9:45:35 AM

Court-martial judgemnts are appealable on all issues of fact and law.

This is, however, one of the major problems with protecting intelligence methods during trials. Although, by spending a good deal of money and dedicating a great deal of resources, we can have a trial where such secrets are protected, we do not have a system for securing the entire appeals process. And we don't have anything like the resources available to do this with hundreds of individuals. So we are faced with the dilemma: Risk loosing major weapons in the fight against terrorism, or risk allowing organized mass murderers to walk free to kill again.

883. CalGal - 12/4/2001 10:43:30 AM

Do you think Bush dreamed up the tribunals and wrote the order on his own?

One would think it would be the military who did the dreaming and writing. Ashcroft would be deliberately giving away the dictatorial powers you suppose he craves.

884. Cellar Door - 12/4/2001 10:44:36 AM

More childish hysteria from Rama-lama-ding-dong.

885. dusty - 12/4/2001 2:17:31 PM

[The Economist isn't exactly a liberal rag.]

Nor is it exactly conservative. But closer to liberal than conservative, and closer to classical liberal than either.

886. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 4:26:52 PM

Right, er, I mean correct!

887. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 4:28:47 PM

Cal, who knows? But, absent the military tribunals, Ashcroft and the FBI are in charge of catching and convicting the terrorists.

888. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:34:50 PM

Right. So if he says, "Hey, let's give these terrorists to the tribunal", he is in effect reducing his sphere of influence. So why hold this against him?

889. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 4:47:10 PM

Because it isn't fair to the accused and may well be unconstitutional as well. Also, it's bad PR for the U.S. which, in the long run, may well undermine our battle against terrorists.

890. Jonesatlaw - 12/4/2001 5:20:43 PM

Although, by spending a good deal of money and dedicating a great deal of resources, we can have a trial where such secrets are protected, we do not have a system for securing the entire appeals process. And we don't have anything like the resources available to do this with hundreds of individuals.

Such matters are filed under seal every day in the appellate courts in our "drug war." They are as well in matters involving proprietary information concerning commercial litigation. Identities of informants, undercover operatives, etc are routinely held secret under a variety of measures to protect national interest while serving due process.

891. thoughtful - 12/4/2001 5:26:21 PM

William Safire in the NY Times ...also far from liberal lefty...has been lambasting the bushies for this tribunal thing too.

892. Rama - 12/4/2001 5:36:24 PM

Because it isn't fair to the accused

You have provided no evidence that this is true.

and may well be unconstitutional as well.

And it may well be constitutional.

Also, it's bad PR for the U.S.

Perhaps, but the OJ trial was bad PR for the U.S. and there is no reason to believe the OBL trial would be better.

which, in the long run, may well undermine our battle against terrorists.

On the other hand, the potential for swift and sure justice may keep foolish young men from making bad choices.

893. Jonesatlaw - 12/4/2001 10:43:53 PM

Please don't use the word justice in connection with the Bush proposal for tribunals. The plan is wholly undeserving of the association.

As mentioned above, there are many ways in which state secrets and sources may be protected aside from lowering the burden of proof; allowing one party to an adversary system total control over the admissibility of evidence, the burden of proof, the finding of guilt or innocence, and denying any recourse to appeal.

I grant that due process is less expedient than drumhead justice. It has always been so. Nevertheless, we as a society have decided that due process is superior to justice by a sovereign's fiat.

Finally, the argument that the current situation is too dangerous to allow for the existence of due process in our handling of Bin Ladin or the like is laughable. We didn't have any problem in applying due process to war crimes after WWII and that was a far nearer thing than anything we have faced yet, and may face even in a worst case scenario at present.

The greatest limitation on American military power at present is self restraint. There is no force that can pose a serious threat of the destruction of the nation, save for that of Russia, and that possibility is more unlikely than in any time in history.

Finally, we must remember that our system of justice is premised upon the idea that certain rights are inherent in humanity. They are not a matter of legislative grace or the generousity of a monarch or the like. To pretend that because of the nature of accusation against Osama Bin Ladin such rights evaporate is to make liars of our founding fathers, and to mock them as foolish dreamers.

894. CalGal - 12/4/2001 10:45:11 PM

Because it isn't fair to the accused and may well be unconstitutional as well.

nonononono. I mean why hold it against Ashcroft. It's not his idea, or his responsibility.

895. jexster - 12/4/2001 10:50:03 PM

President Bush's order establishing military tribunals for noncitizen terrorist suspects is riddled with flaws.

First, to justify the order, the president acts as though Congress has declared war, when all it has really done is authorize him to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [involved in the September 11 attacks]... to prevent any future [such] acts of international terrorism against the United States." ...

Second, the order's reach is so sweeping that it could ensnare not just terrorist leaders captured overseas, but any ordinary, lawful resident alien who may once have "knowingly harbored" a present or former member of Al Qaeda or who might be "believe[d]" to have "aided or abetted ... acts in preparation" for international terrorism.

Third, the order provides no definition of "international terrorism"--and the definition of "terrorism" recently provided by Congress in the USA Patriot Act is broad enough to encompass, for instance, a doctor in the Netherlands prescribing lethal medication for a terminally ill Oregon patient to "influence the policy of" the attorney general regarding Oregon doctors by "intimidat[ing]" him into backing down....But therein lies the problem: Using so amorphous and elastic a term without pinning it down invites arbitrary and potentially discriminatory decisions of whom to submit to a military trial and whom to spare that burden.

896. jexster - 12/4/2001 10:50:41 PM

Fourth, the tribunal's jurisdiction extends beyond "violations of the laws of war" to encompass violations of all "other applicable laws," which in turn invites the use of military tribunals for ordinary state or federal crimes that bear no relation to the wartime rationale for circumventing the safeguards of the civilian courts.

Fifth, the order gives the president and secretary of defense unbridled discretion to conduct all proceedings in complete secrecy, and to reach whatever "final decision" the president deems proper, perhaps even convicting and sentencing to death someone the tribunal has acquitted. And these are just the most obvious excesses.

Trial By Fury, Lawrence Tribe, TNR

897. Jonesatlaw - 12/4/2001 11:08:04 PM

Jex- it would have made Stalin blush at the flattery of the imitation.

898. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 8:05:18 AM

Cal, What makes you think the tribunals weren't Ashcroft's idea? If not his then whose? I don't know whose idea they were, but he has been the public point man on it. And he's in charge of the FBI whose job it is to develop evidence in the cases. You may have noted that I am willing to believe the absolute worst about Ashcroft, based on watching most of his confirmation hearings and reading a lot about his past record on civil rights, gay rights, approval of Clinton judge nominations. After watching several hours of his hearings and then reading the truth about what he was saying I concluded that he was a racist, a homophobe and a liar, of the first order.

899. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2001 8:09:43 AM

The matter of revoking citizenship was discussed in the Attack thread but perhaps it fits better here.

CalGal asserts that an American who whas acquired citizenship by birth can be deprived of it, fo example in the case of treason. I find that very difficult to believe.

900. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 8:20:44 AM

A citizen can be deprived of the right to vote.
I'm not sure about citizenship except in cases where they choose to become citizens of other countries?? Is dual citizenship permitted by the U.S.? I was born in a Dutch territory (Aruba, Netherlands Antilles)of American parents and can remember being told I had the option at age 18 choosing to be a Dutch citizen INSTEAD of American. Not sure whether this was correct or not.

901. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 8:24:06 AM

Also, I'm not sure why there would be a distinction between someone who "acquired citizenship by birth" and a naturalized citizen. My impression is that all citizens are equal, except candidates for President must be native born citizens. But I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about the subject.

902. bubbaette - 12/5/2001 8:53:53 AM

My oldest sis was born in germany to an american serviceman and a german citizen. When she came of age she had the choice between becoming an american citizen or a german citizen and was advised that by voting in america she effectively cast her choice for american citizenship.

Mom became a naturalized american citizen back in 73. I find it interesting, though, that she receives a little bitty pension for having given birth to a child in germany after WWII -- in response to their birth dearth.

903. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 9:17:03 AM

High Treason in Sweden

Four teenagers were convicted of high treason for throwing a cream cake at King Carl Gustaf. The four boys, ages 16 and 17, were ordered to pay fines of up to $370 in what was the first Swedish treason case in memory, the TT news agency said. they were also convicted of assault. In a protest against the monarchy, the youths made a strawberry cream cake and one of them threw it in the king's face shouting "For king and Fatherland! during a royal visit to a park in September. (Reuters)

904. Rama - 12/5/2001 10:12:51 AM

As mentioned above, there are many ways in which state secrets and sources may be protected aside from lowering the burden of proof; allowing one party to an adversary system total control over the admissibility of evidence, the burden of proof, the finding of guilt or innocence, and denying any recourse to appeal.

As mentioned above, as a practical matter, they don?t work very well.

Nevertheless, we as a society have decided that due process is superior to justice by a sovereign's fiat.

And what has been proposed is due process. Perhaps you do not understand what due process means?

We didn't have any problem in applying due process to war crimes after WWII and that was a far nearer thing than anything we have faced yet, and may face even in a worst case scenario at present.

That is absurd on its face: We had the war crimes trials for WWII when the war was done. These trials will occur while the conflict is still on-going.

905. Rama - 12/5/2001 10:13:34 AM

The greatest limitation on American military power at present is self restraint. There is no force that can pose a serious threat of the destruction of the nation, save for that of Russia, and that possibility is more unlikely than in any time in history.

The issue here is not the offensive ability of American military power; the US can virtually destroy the world. The issue is the ability to defend US lives. Our capabilities there are much more limited. There was no way for any ex-NAZI to inflict the sort of harm these current aggressors have demonstrated themselves capable of.

Finally, we must remember that our system of justice is premised upon the idea that certain rights are inherent in humanity.

And the proposed tribunals do not contravene any of those rights. It does deny rights that would be due to US citizen criminals, but that is a different matter entirely.

906. marjoribanks - 12/5/2001 10:15:51 AM

Why couldn't bubbaette's sister become citizens of both countries? My cousin was born in the US to an Indian father and a German mother, carried a US passport until she was 18 and then got a German one as well.

India does not allow dual citizenship, but the US and all European countries do.

907. Rama - 12/5/2001 10:25:50 AM

The US does not recognize dual citizenship. Acts which are interpreted as giving allegiance to another country are considered to void this allegiance to the US. However, the US does not hold it against a US citizen that another state considers that person to be a citizen of that state.

908. CalGal - 12/5/2001 10:35:24 AM

CalGal asserts that an American who whas acquired citizenship by birth can be deprived of it, fo example in the case of treason.

Actually, I said that Americans can be deprived of their citizenship by "expatriating acts". Treason can't always be proved; I'm not sure what the punishment is in treason--death penalty always?

909. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 10:36:56 AM

The tribunals appear to contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which the U. S. supported not long after WWII.

910. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 10:37:42 AM

Of course the devil is in the details, and in how selectively they are used.

911. CalGal - 12/5/2001 10:47:28 AM

What makes you think the tribunals weren't Ashcroft's idea?

If they were his idea, then he is willing to give away authority, which ruins your whole notion of him being power mad.

912. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 12:04:05 PM

I never said Ashcroft is power mad. He's a major league racist, homophobic, lying, fundamentalist asshole. I guess that about covers it. The closest to calling him power mad I recall is likening him to Joe McCarthy.

913. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2001 2:32:06 PM

CalGal

What is an "expatriating act"?

914. Indiana Jones - 12/5/2001 2:35:54 PM

Pelle:

A citizen of the United States loses U.S. citizenship by becoming a citizen of a foreign country unless a special exception is made by the State Department. A person can also lose U.S. citizenship for serving in the armed forces of, or holding office in, a foreign government. U.S. citizenship can also be taken away from people who have been convicted of a major federal crime, such as treason. But people cannot lose their citizenship for something they were forced to do. A person who is forced to serve in a foreign army, for example, will not lose U.S. citizenship.

Grolier Encyclopedia

915. CalGal - 12/5/2001 2:39:31 PM

Expatriating Statutes

1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

(4) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

(6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

So even if they didn't convict him of treason they could arguably take away his citizenship, based on #3.

916. CalGal - 12/5/2001 2:40:46 PM

Should have refreshed, sorry.

917. Indiana Jones - 12/5/2001 2:41:42 PM

Well, a primary source is better anyway.

918. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2001 2:41:44 PM

wonkers

That was a highly symbolic case. The king let it be (discreetly) known that he didn't care one way or the other. The government, which decides in cases of suspected high treason, decided to prosecute. The maximum sentence for "assault of a member of the Royal without causing bodily harm" is six years. These kids got off with the lightest possible sentence and everybody is moderatly happy or unhappy as is so often the case in Sweden.

919. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2001 3:08:12 PM

But

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship (my emphasis).

920. CalGal - 12/5/2001 3:15:04 PM

Yes, that's the administrative premise.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE
...
4) performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

921. PelleNilsson - 12/5/2001 3:28:38 PM

Sorry, I didn't read far enough. That's a good rubbery esape clause if the administration wants to use it.

922. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 3:57:11 PM

Rama- You assert that the trials will take place while the "war" is on going. First, war has not been declared, despite the public hue and cry that we are at war. Given that there is no legal war at present, and hardly even a police action in the sense of Korea or Vietnam, the rationales proposed by Ashcroft and Bush ring hollow.

Second, why must the trials be conducted while the "war" is ongoing? A simple solution to the problem is to actually declare war on our opponants. This is supposedly a new kind of war, so why not actually try to extend the legality to current reality? We could then hold the offenders as POW's or as war criminals as the case may be for the duration. Then we could have full fair and open trials as soon as it is safe?

Third, if you think that the proposed tribunals are due process you do not understand what the term means in law. The military tribunals in question are part of the chain of command and are directly responsible to the orders of the commander in chief and the secretary of defence. The proposal that the tribunals be capable of trying persons for crimes while the defendants are in the US, in secret, without a jury, without the ability to discover the evidence presented against them, with the burden of proof lowered, where the rules of evidence are ad hoc, and where the presiding decisionmakers are not independent and impartial violates nearly every constitutional guarantee applicable to criminal defendants. They do propose to allow defense attorneys to appear, and to present an argument. Beyond that, any resemblence between the proposal and due process is illusory.

923. thoughtful - 12/5/2001 4:05:21 PM

Jones, is there a way of reversing this tribunal thing? I mean is there a process by which the pres. can be forced to rescind the order? If so, what is it...congressional? judicial?

924. Rama - 12/5/2001 4:40:19 PM

Rama- You assert that the trials will take place while the "war" is on going.

No, I do not, and since my exact words are only one page back, for you to put forward this dishonesty is stupid.

Second, why must the trials be conducted while the "war" is ongoing?

If, by that odd statement, you mean why should the trials occur while there are still combatants in the field, there are two major reasons: 1) In this conflict, there is nobody to sign a peace treaty with, so there is no way to know exactly when we have won and, more importantly 2) These trials are themselves part of our defense in this struggle.

A simple solution to the problem is to actually declare war on our opponants.

What problem does this solve?

We could then hold the offenders as POW's or as war criminals as the case may be for the duration.

Hold criminals indefinitely without charges, or hold POWs forever, when there is no possibility of armistice? What a creepy totalitarian idea.

925. Rama - 12/5/2001 4:41:02 PM

Third, if you think that the proposed tribunals are due process you do not understand what the term means in law.

Due process means "that individuals shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves". The proposed tribunals provide due process.

The military tribunals in question are part of the chain of command and are directly responsible to the orders of the commander in chief and the secretary of defence.

As are all military courts.

The proposal that . . . violates nearly every constitutional guarantee applicable to criminal defendants.

Even if all of that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that due process is being provided.

926. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 5:09:18 PM

Rama- where did you assert that the tribunals would occur while the "war" was ongoing? Perhaps this is where I got the idea-

We had the war crimes trials for WWII when the war was done. These trials will occur while the conflict is still on-going.

Going to weasel out of this by debating "war" versus "conflict?"

Re 925 and the specious comparison to military justice-
Military courts apply law determined by congress, subject to the judicial power; the proposed tribunals answer only to the executive branch.

If there is no one to sign a peace treaty with, and we are not at war, then we are talking about law enforcement and not wartime emergencies. If that is the case, let's use proper procedure.

927. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 5:15:23 PM

There is no way to directly rescind the order that comes to mind. However, the courts can declare the process unconstitutional, and order the prisoners released. This is a very real possibility which could trigger a constitutional crisis. It could also make us a pariah state as far as the enlightened international community is concerned and impede their law enforcement and courts in efforts to assist in the search for terrorists and their accomplices.

The plan is worse than a constitutional "sin", it's a blunder. We are trumpeting that we were attacked because of our freedoms, which terrorists hate, and yet we adopt Taliban type courts as a means of achieving justice?

928. thoughtful - 12/5/2001 5:16:38 PM

thanks, jones....fat chance with this SC though, after their performance during the presidential "selection".

929. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 5:18:04 PM

I'm sorry, my last post was addressed to thoughtful's question.

930. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 5:27:16 PM

I think that some folks believe that Bush could declare himself God-Emperor George I, so long as he said it would help us get Bin Ladin.

Really, the terrorist attacks were an awful tragedy, but we can't dismantle 200 plus years of wisdom to suit the zeitgeist.

931. jexster - 12/5/2001 10:10:24 PM

Still, now as then, using Army courts to try anyone but U.S. soldiers is to court the reproach of posterity.

Uncivil Courts: History of US Military Tribunals

932. jexster - 12/5/2001 10:37:02 PM

The US does not recognize dual citizenship

Wrong Again! US Dual Citizenship FAQ

933. Rama - 12/5/2001 11:13:05 PM

Going to weasel out of this by debating "war" versus "conflict?"

The weasel is the guy who puts war in quotes, and posts stupid dishonesty.

Re 925 and the specious comparison to military justice-

You do seem to find reality offensive. Dishonest people frequently do.

Military courts apply law determined by congress, subject to the judicial power; the proposed tribunals answer only to the executive branch.

This is a completely different point from the one you posted. Not that it is a particularly good one.

If there is no one to sign a peace treaty with, and we are not at war, then we are talking about law enforcement and not wartime emergencies.

Only a fool would claim so. The mass killing of 4000 people for the purpose of change a nation states political policies is no mere criminal matter. But when the aggressors are not a nation state, it is not war in the legal sense that guides international laws.

Not that this is unprecedented. In fact, in the past, the same situation has occurred with pirates. And in that case as well, the attackers could by tried for crimes against humanity by any duly constituted court. Military tribunals were routinely used, and the pirate threat greatly reduced.

934. Rama - 12/5/2001 11:16:39 PM

This is a very real possibility which could trigger a constitutional crisis.It could also make us a pariah state as far as the enlightened international community is concerned and impede their law enforcement and courts in efforts to assist in the search for terrorists and their accomplices.

Utter rubbish with no least bit of basis.

I think that some folks believe that Bush could declare himself God-Emperor George I, so long as he said it would help us get Bin Ladin.

I think that some folks would give Bin Ladin a medal, if they thought it would spite the current administration. It is a level of moral depravity I find breath-taking.

935. Cellar Door - 12/5/2001 11:20:17 PM

Oh quit playeing the victim-card, Rama!

GET OVER IT!!!!

936. Rama - 12/5/2001 11:24:21 PM

The US does not recognize dual citizenship

I generally ignore jexter's insane prating, but people shouldn't be misled. Please note the clear caveats in the link he posted.

Here is a better source of guidance .

937. wonkers2 - 12/6/2001 9:01:57 AM

Cal, Today's NYTimes reports that the idea for military tribunals was proposed by Cheney, not Ashcroft although Ashcroft has been taking the public heat. The same article also said that Rumsfeld has been listening to the critics and may well come up with procedures that deal with many of the due process issues which are concerning so many people.

There are two good NYT op-eds on the subject, one by Safire and another by James Orenstein, a former federal prosecutor and assistant attorney general. Both criticize the tribunals as short sighted, pointing out that several European countries are unlikely to turn over a number of suspects they are holding to be tried in military tribunals. And although convictions may be easier, theoretically, using military tribunals will actually undermine the prosecutions in "the increasingly global law enforcement effort. ...Federal agents routinely exchange information with foreign police and seek to bring criminals arrested abroad to the U. S. for trial. But that cooperation is imperiled when foreign governemnts don't trust us to respect the basic rights of the people we ask them to send us."

"The order can also harm our ability to participate in foreign investigations of terrorism against Americans abroad, like the bombing of the Khobar Towers or the attack on the destroyer Cole. In such cases the FBI tries to become as involved as possible, lest a suspect be executed by the host govt before our agents can question him bor follow up on leads to other terrorists. But our requests will be less persuasive when we claim the right to subject foreign nationals to secret military trials and even execute them without judicial review." etc.

938. wonkers2 - 12/6/2001 9:04:53 AM

Cheney has been lying low since 9-11, but I guess we should have suspected that a former supporter of apartheid South Africa was the most likely one to have come up with the idea for kangaroo courts. He has a completely tin ear on matters of civil liberties.

939. thoughtful - 12/6/2001 9:10:38 AM

Orenstein's piece points to Spain's balking at extradition if the suspects are to be handed over to a military tribunal.

940. thoughtful - 12/6/2001 9:11:34 AM

When I heard Ridge putting America on "high alert" again, I was wondering if that meant Cheney wanted to go duck hunting again.

941. Rama - 12/6/2001 9:41:21 AM

Orenstein's piece points to Spain's balking at extradition if the suspects are to be handed over to a military tribunal.

Which pretty much blows his credibility. Spain doesn't execute their own ETA terrorists, and they are not going to extradite suspects to the death dealing USA, regardless of the use of military tribunals. BTW, Spain has used military courts to try ETA terrorists.

942. Rama - 12/6/2001 9:44:15 AM

AND, it would be better for us if Spain prosecutes these guys. These are crimes against humanity, not crimes against the US.

943. thoughtful - 12/6/2001 9:52:10 AM

From CNN:
"A Spanish court official confirmed to CNN that extradition might be difficult because of the death penalty in the United States, which does not exist in Spain, as well as the military tribunals, which would provide fewer guarantees to the accused than are normally provided in Spanish courts." Emphasis mine.

944. Rama - 12/6/2001 9:57:07 AM

Do you not speak English, or is logic beyond you?

A Spanish court official confirmed to CNN that extradition might be difficult because of the death penalty in the United States, which does not exist in Spain

Spain has previousely refused to extradite prisoners who face the death penalty in the US, and would be bucking EU policy if they did.

They won't extradite them, regardless of the use of military tribunals.

945. Rama - 12/6/2001 9:59:21 AM

You appear to me be another of these people who would be willing to see killers go free if it would discomfit the current administration.

I could be wrong, of course. Is there any reason I should believe I am mistaken?

946. Francis Urquhart - 12/6/2001 10:17:10 AM

jones

"However, the courts can declare the process unconstitutional, and order the prisoners released. This is a very real possibility which could trigger a constitutional crisis. It could also make us a pariah state as far as the enlightened international community is concerned and impede their law enforcement and courts in efforts to assist in the search for terrorists and their accomplices."

This is dramatic and, I believe, not particularly well-founded. Moreover, the resort to hyperbole such as "Taliban type courts" seems almost hysterical.

Here is a sober criticism on military tribunals, bereft of the emotional.

Tribe on Tribunals

I agree with Tribe's point re: a declaration of war, and wish Bush had called for one.

That said, I think the strength of the tribunals is in many ways their amorphous nature, a nature Tribe finds most offensive (as many lawyers do).

947. thoughtful - 12/6/2001 10:18:44 AM

Is there any reason I should believe I am mistaken?

Yes, there are reasons to believe you are mistaken about a lot of things.

Is it easier to get someone to do something they don't want to do if they have one reason not to do it or two? The military tribunal issue means that they will be violating the UN Human Rights Treaty according to that leftist of liberals William Safire in today's NY Times.

948. Francis Urquhart - 12/6/2001 10:22:08 AM

I looked back and apologize for re-posting the Tribe article (which was offered by jexster).

949. Rama - 12/6/2001 10:22:43 AM

I agree with Tribe's point re: a declaration of war, and wish Bush had called for one.

I think many soldiers are as uncomfortable at making this conflict a declared war as lawyers may be at these courts.

950. Rama - 12/6/2001 10:24:36 AM

Yes, there are reasons to believe you are mistaken about a lot of things.

Of course. But could you list some on the particular issue of your motives?

951. jexster - 12/6/2001 11:03:11 AM

Apologies are unnecessary Francis. You are such a gentleman!

952. Francis Urquhart - 12/6/2001 11:07:06 AM

Rama

My point to a declaration of war has less to do with the niceties of military tribunals, which I prefer to be flexible and to a measure, indefinite.

When you commit significant troops in a war, I think it good politics and good policy to get Congress on the record as supporting your actions.

953. jexster - 12/6/2001 11:28:47 AM

Whopper of the Week - Herr Obergruppen Fuehrer Ashcroft..

Attorney general says controversial measures will apply only to "a narrow class of individuals - terrorists."

Third, the order provides no definition of "international terrorism"--and the definition of "terrorism" recently provided by Congress in the USA Patriot Act is broad enough to encompass, for instance, a doctor in the Netherlands prescribing lethal medication for a terminally ill Oregon patient to "influence the policy of" the attorney general regarding Oregon doctors by "intimidat[ing]" him into backing down.

954. Cellar Door - 12/6/2001 11:57:30 AM

Gore Vidal says. . . (and The Mote ignores)

955. marjoribanks - 12/6/2001 12:14:18 PM

Cellar, I happen to like contrarians and gadflys and Gore Vidal.

But what is interesting or new in that article? Or particularly true, for that matter?

956. PincherMartin - 12/6/2001 1:43:20 PM

I use to think Vidal had gone completely loopy in his old age, but I've recently reread some of his political pieces I once read in my late teens and early twenties, and now I understand Vidal was always loopy. Vidal's charm simply works better on people who've rarely left their house or held a steady job.

957. CalGal - 12/6/2001 1:44:41 PM

I love Vidal. But yes, he has always been loopy.

958. CalGal - 12/6/2001 1:45:16 PM

How come there's been no more coverage of our Taliban traitor, I wonder?

959. PincherMartin - 12/6/2001 1:56:56 PM

CalGal --

I still enjoy reading Vidal, even on political issues. He's always funny (one can't say that about Chomsky) and I like reading his gossip.

And his literary judgements still seems firm.

960. PincherMartin - 12/6/2001 1:57:37 PM

...seem...

961. Rama - 12/6/2001 4:35:08 PM

When you commit significant troops in a war, I think it good politics and good policy to get Congress on the record as supporting your actions.

In this case, the Congess did authorize the use of all neccessary force. And a mere declaration of war wouldn't put Congress on record as supporting your actions. The complaints about the tribunals wouldn't disapear just because Congress voted a declaration of war.

But, if you issue a legal declaration of war on the terrorists, you have legally elevated them to the level of soldiers. Most soldiers would object to that.

962. Francis Urquhart - 12/6/2001 4:52:03 PM

Rama

I'm not sure the language is all that relevant. Obviously, we are dealing with criminals, but one could then derive the dreaded and lame response to criminal actions. And while the Taliban and al Qaeda may not be vaunted soldiers in the traditional sense of the word, neither were The Barbary Pirates.

I just read Black Hawk Down, which, along with David Hackworth's chapter on Mogadishu in Hazardous Duty is a must read for those who are interested in the modern constraints of third-world entanglements, both from an operational and ground-level viewpoint.

I find it unlikely that the Ranger and Delta Force soldiers in "the Mog" would have given one whit as to the alleged status afforded Aidid's militia were war declared and the status of "soldier" conferred. Moreover, on those two days, the "Sammies" probably acted ever more than most Italian "soldiers" we dispensed with in World War II.

But a good argument can be made that the cover allowed to Congress and the Administration in not declaring firmly on the intervention contributed to the ignominious withdrawal, which probably contributed to an international presumption that if you bloody the nose of the United States, and drag a corpse in the streets, the United States will shrink.

Again, I'm not proposing a declaration of war for the rhetorical advantage of defending tribunals, which I support and which have the added advantage of needing no added advantage, rhetorical or otherwise.

963. Rama - 12/6/2001 5:58:36 PM

I find it unlikely that the Ranger and Delta Force soldiers in "the Mog" would have given one whit as to the alleged status afforded Aidid's militia were war declared and the status of "soldier" conferred. Moreover, on those two days, the "Sammies" probably acted ever more than most Italian "soldiers" we dispensed with in World War II.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't think soldiers would have objected to declaring war on any nation state, even amorphous ones like Somalia or Afghanistan. The objection is declaring war on pirates like al Queda.

964. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 11:06:16 AM

Ramen Noodle- I caught you denying that you had asserted that the tribunal trials would occur during the war when you clearly had done so.
Now you are going out of your way to call
me a liar. Look to yourself in matters of honesty before you cast insults at others.

933. Rama - 12/6/01 4:13:05 AM

Going to weasel out of this by debating "war" versus "conflict?"

The weasel is the guy who puts war in quotes, and posts stupid dishonesty.

Re 925 and the specious comparison to military justice-

You do seem to find reality offensive. Dishonest people frequently do.

You disagree with my position and find my reasoning unpersuasive, fine. The dishonesty however, is all yours.

965. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/7/2001 11:10:54 AM

". . .But, if you issue a legal declaration of war on the terrorists, you have legally elevated them to the level of soldiers. Most soldiers would object to that."

Of course and we can call the Japanese-Americans of the Forties, heretics!

966. jexster - 12/7/2001 12:34:09 PM

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to . . . enemies and pause to . . . friends. John Ashcroft 12/06/01

Condemned by his own words.

967. jexster - 12/7/2001 12:36:38 PM

For the Attorney General to claim that those who stand on the Constitution of the United States are unpatriotic is fascism most foul.

968. Cellar Door - 12/7/2001 12:50:47 PM

"which I support and which have the added advantage of needing no added advantage, rhetorical or otherwise."

Pure exercises in Power are never in need of defense. Might Makes Right. Everybody knows that.

As an "openly" gay man I have never enjoyed any "rights." Nor have I lived with the illusion that the government in any way represents me, or will so much as blink before crushing me, if it chooses to do so. a fortiori as an African-American my relations with the "Police" has been like that of the Fox to its hunters.

969. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 2:22:03 PM

There are two problems I see with the proposed tribunals- one is domestic and the other is international.

There is always a great temptation in times of crisis for governments to short cut our sometimes cumbersome system. We have almost universally regretted when we have resorted to expediency over principal. The Palmer raids, the internment of Japanese Americans, the refusal to prosecute the Japanese for their biological experiments in China, all seemed militarily expedient and wise at the time. Hindsight has shown otherwise.

The second is by abandoning the principles we hold dear we open ourselves to the skepticism of the rest of the world when we justify our actions in defense of those principles. Most importantly, we are fighting an ideology which is dangerous to the liberty of western democracy. Just as we sought to de-nazify Germany following the war by exposing the corrupt ideology the it was founded on through the Nuremberg trials, we will need to de-terrorize the societies which have harbored and given rise to this threat. We cannot do that in secret. We must expose the hatred, the irrationality, the cruelty and base purusuit of power that lies behind Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Qeda, the Taliban, and all the twisted perverters of Islam who threaten us. We will not convince many of the haters to change, but we will change the hearts of those who tolerate or tacitly support them. We will isolate them and remove political and ideological cover for their actions. Hopefully, we will discredit their beliefs and consign them to the ash heap of history as we have consigned Nazism to its fires.

970. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 2:22:40 PM

The scary part of such a process for our government is to have to face the role we played in the rise of such haters to legitimacy and power. NOTE- I AM NOT SAYING WE CREATED BIN LADIN or his ilk. We did not create Hitler, either, but we made choices (along with the UK, France and others) that helped him in his quest for power and later for plunging the world into war. Many of our actions regarding Hitler were mistakes, just as we may regard some of our policies in the middle east as mistakes. It is important to evaluate them fairly in order to avoid them as a nation, just as it is important for us to understand how a modern tyrant may rise under the cloak of religion.

971. PelleNilsson - 12/7/2001 3:48:03 PM

Good posts, Jones.

972. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 3:50:08 PM

Amen! Jones has the subject nailed.

973. Francis Urquhart - 12/7/2001 4:28:14 PM

Jones

"We have almost universally regretted when we have resorted to expediency over principal. The Palmer raids, the internment of Japanese Americans, the refusal to prosecute the Japanese for their biological experiments in China, all seemed militarily expedient and wise at the time. Hindsight has shown otherwise."

You have chosen some errors of history and painted them as the norm to wartime in an affort to denigrate recent measured and not particularly onerous restrictions on civil liberties. Yet, just a review of a few of the less controversial impingements on civil liberties during World War II demonstrates both your historical selectivity and your disproportionate outrage at the meager actions of today's Justice Department. They include:

- conscription
- curfews
- internment of Germans
- registration of aliens
- blackout and dimout orders
- rationing
- forced diversion of crop plantings
- price ceilings

So, when you speak of the universal regret of "we" in an effort to predict same with regard to tribunals and detentions, I suggest you at least offer the full panoply of civil liberty curtailment (I didn't even get into the activities of DOJ in the 1940s) in historical context so that "we" may make more of an informed choice.

Moreover, in times of crisis, it is always more difficult to administer for prevention when threats deterred may never be known, and catastrophes that do not come to be will always be trumpeted as evidence of the extremism of the actor.

974. Francis Urquhart - 12/7/2001 4:28:25 PM

You have also limited the choices to two - a Jesuit's trick - the choices being "expediency" over "principal" (sic). This fails for two reasons. First, there is nothing wrong with expedience, which merely means a "means to an end" or "advisable". Second, I assume you to be using "expedient" in lieu of "hastily considered". This is not necessarily in conflict with "principle". For example, in my view, it was both expedient and principled to ground every single flight on September 11th.

Finally, I would ask that you justify your argument as to the detriment of alleged world disappointment with our principles? If the attacks had occurred in Madrid, do you suggest there would have been no curtailment of civil liberties in Spain?

I suggest you read Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, and other of his writings. His work will disabuse you of the idea that our most radical enemies can be taught peace by our good deeds and example. Nuremberg was an intellectual exercise, preceded by the most effective method of de-Nazification - killing Nazis.

975. Francis Urquhart - 12/7/2001 4:29:57 PM

affort-effort

976. PelleNilsson - 12/7/2001 4:40:22 PM

Francis at his pompous worst.

977. Francis Urquhart - 12/7/2001 4:46:51 PM

Pelle

I'm sorry if you confuse the accuracy of reasoned rebuttal with the discordance of pomposity. Thankfully, your confusion has not debilitated your keen knack for saying "Good show!" and "poppycock!, the value of such contributions I cannot fairly estimate.

Gentlemen. Ladies. Good evening.

978. Wombat - 12/7/2001 4:56:56 PM

Francis:

All the "infringements" you list (except conscription) were put in place by the executive following a declaration of war, which was passed by Congress.

For the executive to attempt to take on certain powers without recourse to Congress strikes me as a bit much. And Ashcroft was more than a little disingenuous in his reasoning behind the use of military tribunals and eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations.

A concern which you have overlooked is the difficulty that we may have with our allies extraditing suspects to us because of this.

What puzzles me most is why the workings of the proposed military tribunals couldn't have been put together first and presented as a whole, instead of presenting them and saying that the details will be worked out later.

979. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 5:00:48 PM

Francis- "a Jesuit's trick"? I'm flattered, public school product that I am, I wouldn't have dreamed to aspire to the wiley ways of S.J.

As for your list of the liberties lost- conscription is a non-issue; the economic controls, farm restrictions etc. started well before the war; rationing is a conservative's idea of a denial of civil rights as is rent control and restrictions on war profiteering-argue with someone else about that.

As for the civil defense measures- I have no objection to them then or now. You want blackouts? Be my guest. Registration of aliens? We have for years, and I don't have a problem with tightening oversight of aliens in the US at all.

It seems that my "either or" Jesuit's trick is contagious. You seem to assert that either I must favor Ashford's "measured and not onerous" progrom, or I favor not killing terrorists. I favor neither.

I do not argue that Nuremberg model procedings will convert Taliban members or that the soldiers of Al-Qeda will become Barney the Dinorsaur softies. It will have an effect on those more average persons who allow these people to operate. It wasn't the SS vets that the Nuremberg procedings were aimed at, it was Hilda Hausfrau who thoght that Hitler wasn't that bad, and that he should be able to get rid of a court system that was cumbersome and public, that the Gestapo should be allowed unlimited rights to search and seizure and secret detention and trial of those who threatened Germany's national security. After all, he was just trying to save the country when it had been surrounded by enemies on all sides.

980. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 5:01:34 PM

There have been plenty of ETA terrorist attacks in Madrid and all over Spain without curtailment of civil liberties, so far as I know. And there is no capital punishment for terrorists or anyone there.

981. PelleNilsson - 12/7/2001 5:09:31 PM

Francis

Kindly don't put quotation marks around expressions I have not used.

Your posting style has evolved from young, sharp and witty to middle-aged, nebulous and pompous in a remarkably short time. I shall follow your further development with great interest.

982. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 5:13:26 PM

Before the conservative chorus chimes assumes that I oppose any extraordinary tribunal, let me state that I do not oppose such a tribunal. I am not satisfied that we should conduct such a tribunal in the US against US citizens. What must be done is to have trials in accordance with international law or with US law with the full checks and balances of our governmental system. Law and procedure as prescribed by Congress, prosecution by the executive and trial and appeals under the control of the judiciary. Not such a radical idea, is it?

983. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 5:27:45 PM

Finally, as for secret judicial procedings- I would offer the following radical notion:
To bereave a man of life or by violence to deprive him of his estate without acusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious act of despotism as must convey the alarm of tyrany throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, secretly hurrying him off to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.
Hamilton, Federalist 84, citing Blackstone's Commentaries

984. Rama - 12/7/2001 8:29:50 PM

Ramen Noodle- I caught you denying that you had asserted that the tribunal trials would occur during the war when you clearly had done so.

All your claims won't change the words that are actually posted here. That Nazi trick of repeating a lie until people believe it won't work in this venue.

Now you are going out of your way to call me a liar.

It is easy to call you a liar, when you keep repeating dishonesty in a recorded forum.

Look to yourself in matters of honesty before you cast insults at others.

Rhetorical flourishes won't erase what was posted.

You disagree with my position and find my reasoning unpersuasive, fine.

Of course, fine.

I wonder if perhaps you have even fallen for your own lie, but I think not. Rather, your edifice was based upon the lie that the end of the bombing in Afghanistan is as safe as the period when the Nazi war criminals were tried. And you tried to hide that falsehood by putting "war" in quotes. Such shyster behavior makes me think you might actually be a lawyer.

985. dusty - 12/7/2001 9:17:31 PM

Excellent discussion.

986. jexster - 12/7/2001 9:24:38 PM

As someone who was actually prepared to listen to Attorney General John Ashcroft's defense of military tribunals and other security measures, I have to say that I was completely disgusted by his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. It was an arrogant, bullying performance that went a long way to substantiating the views of his harshest critics. Ashcroft declined to be drawn into any kind of substantive discussion of military tribunals or anything else. To fair question after fair question, his answer was essentially, "Don't you realize there are people trying to kill us?" He haughtily dismissed those of his former colleagues who dared to suggest they had some kind of standing to participate in a discussion with him. With his slurs against "Miranda rights," "flamboyant" defense attorneys, and "Osama TV," the country's top lawyer suggested that our entire system of criminal justice is an unworkable sham. Sen. Chuck Schumer was right to point out that the only part of the Constitution that seems to excite his sympathy is the Second Amendment.

Ashcroft's Repulsive Performance

987. jexster - 12/7/2001 9:26:09 PM

It was an arrogant, bullying performance that went a long way to substantiating the views of his harshest critics.

Message # 966

First in war, first in peace...