<strong>Like I said before you really don't get this,this isn't a consrvative/liberal issue.This system is just as likely to be used against you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really DO get this, but I'm tired of hearing the current administration getting turned into a bunch of Nazis. If anything, they've helped to bring the frightening loss of individual liberties to the light of day.
I agree, the potential for abuse of rights is frightening. But this ISN'T NEW (as you pointed out above, R). As for breaking in doors in the middle of the night, it's been going on for YEARS. Abuses of federal law enforcement authority aren't a recent development, and they've been getting worse and worse. But as I remember it, when someone referred to the BATF as "jackbooted thugs" the anti-conservative movement had a freaking field day.
The Feds have had too much presence in law enforcement for many moons, so why are people ALL OF A SUDDEN up in arms about this? Your neighbors could sick the "jackbooted thugs" on you YEARS AGO -- but those of us who recognized it were called paranoid and alarmist. Social services can TAKE YOUR CHILDREN on the basis of a rumor or anonymous call. All that's gone on in recent months is to openly recognize the power (and responsibility, to be fair) that the Feds have. They can and will do what they want to. It's been this way as long as I can remember. It was probably much worse, in fact, when Hoover was running the show.
Ultimately, though, we've got the legal system behind us. That has its price as well (the ATLA).
Anyhow, I didn't mean to minimize this, I was just reacting to the sudden OUTRAGE I'm hearing from people about this. There is nothing new here. Nothing. Just the recognition of how the world REALLY WORKS.
[quote]The Feds have had too much presence in law enforcement for many moons, so why are people ALL OF A SUDDEN up in arms about this? Your neighbors could sick the "jackbooted thugs" on you YEARS AGO -- but those of us who recognized it were called paranoid and alarmist. Social services can TAKE YOUR CHILDREN on the basis of a rumor or anonymous call. All that's gone on in recent months is to openly recognize the power (and responsibility, to be fair) that the Feds have. They can and will do what they want to. It's been this way as long as I can remember. It was probably much worse, in fact, when Hoover was running the show.
Ultimately, though, we've got the legal system behind us. That has its price as well (the ATLA).
Anyhow, I didn't mean to minimize this, I was just reacting to the sudden OUTRAGE I'm hearing from people about this. There is nothing new here. Nothing. Just the recognition of how the world REALLY WORKS.<hr></blockquote>
Go read the Patriot Act and then edit your post to take out the stupid parts please.
I've been to Cuba and seen this in action. It does not make for a happy population. My lover is Polish and remembers it very well there too ... not good company to be keeping.
And as for those people who say "if you're not guilty, you've nothing to worry about," let me say this: mein farkin' gott, you've got a shock coming.
Hmmm... I glanced over the background page on the whitehouse's site, and didn't notice anythig too horribly alarming. In any case, as long as we've got the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, I'm not gonna lose much sleep over this.
Go read the Patriot Act and then edit your post to take out the stupid parts please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read it -- nothing new. You could be treated the same way BEFORE the Patriot Act, it just took more finesse on the govt. part.
And I don't dispute the reality of the CitzenCorps (or VolksSturm, or whatever the Nazis called it) but I refuse to see it as part of a conspiracy to subjugate the populace.
Again, nothing new here. Scary, but no different from what has been building up over the past 15 years.
<strong>Hmmm... I glanced over the background page on the whitehouse's site, and didn't notice anythig too horribly alarming. In any case, as long as we've got the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, I'm not gonna lose much sleep over this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if this is tongue in cheek or not, but since there were no smilies, I'll treat it as if you were serious.
First, there is a well known saying by a former US Attorney that, "A Grand Jury will indict a hambuger." Once you are indicted, my friend, you are in serious trouble. You'll have to hire an attorney. He will be very expensive if he's any good. Defending against the better armed and better funded Feds is a very very expensive undertaking (that's why most people plead out regardless of their culpability). You will lose your job, before or after the case, it doesn't matter. Once you've been indicted as a terrorist, even if you aren't convicted, you'll always be tainted goods (think about people wrongly indicted for drug trafficking; they're always drug traffickers in the court of public opinion). So, to sum up, even if you are innocent, you will be bankrupt and without a job and everyone who reads the papers will think you are a terrorist or commie or whatever. Your life will be ruined.
I've seen it happen.
Now, for those of you who think this is just liberals tilting at windmills, I don't know what to say other than its in everybody's best interest to safe guard civil liberties just as it is in the interest of all to have law and order. I suggest that "liberal" is not co-extensive with "you attack the president, you must be a liberal bastard," nor is conservative with "everything the president does is good." What we should be focusing on is how to accomplish these goals; the content is what's important, not who is proposing them. Using these labels in a debate merely shifts the focus from the merits of the debate or content of the policy.
As for the comment that this is not a conscious effort to subjugate the people, I suggest that intent does not bear on the wisdom or unwisdom of the program. If the reasonably foreseeable end result is a substantial lessening of freedom and/or de facto oppression (or subjugation, which ever you prefer), the program is unwise and should not be implemented, no matter how good its creator's intentions are. I think the program is too similar to things that oppressive regimes have done in the past and the mere fact that it is proposed by a leader of a 'free' country does not cleanse it of this association. It is unwise.
<strong>That's always been the case. Check the case law. Also note the recent court ruling that restates the ability of the court to review someone's status.
In short you are wrong and uninformed.
Next?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I'm not sure of what your talking about. I'm quite familliar with this area of law, and unless you specifically say which cases, you have not refuted anything. What "has always been the case." And, what do you mean by "status?"
"Next" isn't appropriate until you actually answer the question.
Actually, I'm not sure of what your talking about. I'm quite familliar with this area of law, and unless you specifically say which cases, you have not refuted anything. What "has always been the case." And, what do you mean by "status?"
"Next" isn't appropriate until you actually answer the question.
Thoth, JD</strong><hr></blockquote>
During WW2 these types of cases came up. So go back and review the cases you know oh so well and get back to me. You say rights have been lost. Prove your case.
During WW2 these types of cases came up. So go back and review the cases you know oh so well and get back to me. You say rights have been lost. Prove your case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you knew a damn thing about the law you'd know that Korematsu and its bretheren - the internment camp cases decided nearly 60 years ago - are of extremely questionable validity now. The Court has distanced itself from those decisions every chance it gets and they have not been cited for the substantive principle those cases decided by the Court in recent memory. Furthermore, if you knew anything other than the reflexive citation of these 2 cases that are trotted out every time the government wants to do something bad to a particular ethnic group, you'd know that Zadvydas v. US (2000) held that a person who was "removed" could not be held indefinitely pending deportation without a bail hearing. A person in such a situation has no right to remain in the US and probably committed a crime of violence to get deported in the first place, and yet his continuance in custody is subject to a bail hearing. The court went to great pains to distinguish Korematsu etc.
An additional distinguishing fact is that WWII was a declared war. I do not think that the joint resolution after 9/11 qualifies under the Constitution as a declaration of war and so does not justify the enhanced powers the Pres. is seeking. I, however, don't think the state of the nation has very much to do with it. There has been no explicit suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and until there has been, I doubt the Executive has the ability to detain to the extent they claim to have. To a limited extent, the government has the ability to detain but that still requires a bail hearing and speedy trial act (and 6th Amendment) guarantees apply.
As for the suspension of the right to counsel, no that hasn't always been the case. As a matter of fact, Yasser Esam Hamdi v. Rumsfeld currently pending in the US Ct. of Appeals for the 4th Cir. will decide whether a Fed Public Defender can meet with an enemy combatant w/o military officers present. You'll note the last bit about the presence of military officers. Noone argued (seriously anyway) that he didn't have the right to counsel.
Just remember that Plessy v. Fergusson was not explicitly overruled in Brown v. Bd. of Edu, but after that it was no longer good law.
So, maybe you should go Shepardize those "WWII" cases and get back to me. Or do you know what Shepards is?
People who join an foreign army and wage war against the US are not "criminals" in the justice system. Bring up the internment camps is a white herring. These people are not jailed for being Muslim or brown or anything other than plotting attacks on the US. They've had judicial review and were found to be under the jurisdiction of the military. Just as captured German and Japanese solders were in WW2.
<strong> They've had judicial review and were found to be under the jurisdiction of the military. Just as captured German and Japanese solders were in WW2.
Can't you do better than that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I can, but my responses are obviously limited by your obtuse posts. Its difficult to discern exactly what you are claiming when you state things like "its always been that way, read the cases." When you do that, the content of your argument is about as much as "I'm right, you're wrong."
Anyway, the cases of German and Japanese soldiers were NOT analogous to American citizens being labelled unlawful combatants and so do not support your case. The former are 1) foreign, and 2) POW's with the attendant rights under conventions. In short, they were not "unlawful combatants," they were lawful combatants and not citizens. Furthermore, as the gov't would have it, not only would constitutional guarantees not apply, neither would the rights granted by the Geneva (and other conventions). The rules of the game would be promulgated by the tribunal itself. The internment cases then are the nearly the only support you can look to to detain citizens indefinitely other than the suspension of habeas cases in the INS situation (because those deal with indefinite captivity).
Oh, and there has been no judicial review of the current detainees status as being under military jurisdiction. That's exactly the point. The briefs the government has filed have stated that the Executive has the SOLE discretion to determine who and who is not an unlawful combatant and therefore amenable to have cases adjudicated in a military tribunal. I have seen and read these briefs. The discretion they claim is extraordinary. This point has not been decided. Lindh is not being tried as an unlawful combatant - that choice was made by the US attorney prosecuting him, not because a court decided his status.
Maybe its you who should try harder by trying to grasp the whole of the situation before forming your opinion, or, as it appears, making up "facts" to support your argument. It is not sufficient to say "well, its been done before" because the simple fact is, is that this is a unique situation and all of the previous factual and legal analogues are incomplete. Even the government attorneys I've spoken with think so.
You can try again but I've stopped listenting as its clear that you're here just to get a rise out of people, as usual. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
You can try again but I've stopped listenting as its clear that you're here just to get a rise out of people, as usual. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>
My fault Thoth. I broke my new rule (Do Not Feed the Trolls).
Comments
<strong>Like I said before you really don't get this,this isn't a consrvative/liberal issue.This system is just as likely to be used against you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really DO get this, but I'm tired of hearing the current administration getting turned into a bunch of Nazis. If anything, they've helped to bring the frightening loss of individual liberties to the light of day.
I agree, the potential for abuse of rights is frightening. But this ISN'T NEW (as you pointed out above, R). As for breaking in doors in the middle of the night, it's been going on for YEARS. Abuses of federal law enforcement authority aren't a recent development, and they've been getting worse and worse. But as I remember it, when someone referred to the BATF as "jackbooted thugs" the anti-conservative movement had a freaking field day.
The Feds have had too much presence in law enforcement for many moons, so why are people ALL OF A SUDDEN up in arms about this? Your neighbors could sick the "jackbooted thugs" on you YEARS AGO -- but those of us who recognized it were called paranoid and alarmist. Social services can TAKE YOUR CHILDREN on the basis of a rumor or anonymous call. All that's gone on in recent months is to openly recognize the power (and responsibility, to be fair) that the Feds have. They can and will do what they want to. It's been this way as long as I can remember. It was probably much worse, in fact, when Hoover was running the show.
Ultimately, though, we've got the legal system behind us. That has its price as well (the ATLA).
Anyhow, I didn't mean to minimize this, I was just reacting to the sudden OUTRAGE I'm hearing from people about this. There is nothing new here. Nothing. Just the recognition of how the world REALLY WORKS.
Welcome to the "real world."
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
I've already got the house wired with CCTV cameras at every corner.
Ultimately, though, we've got the legal system behind us. That has its price as well (the ATLA).
Anyhow, I didn't mean to minimize this, I was just reacting to the sudden OUTRAGE I'm hearing from people about this. There is nothing new here. Nothing. Just the recognition of how the world REALLY WORKS.<hr></blockquote>
Go read the Patriot Act and then edit your post to take out the stupid parts please.
<a href="http://www.citizencorps.gov"; target="_blank">http://www.citizencorps.gov</a>;
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/citizencorps/background.html"; target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/citizencorps/background.html</a>;
Are these phony websites?
I've been to Cuba and seen this in action. It does not make for a happy population. My lover is Polish and remembers it very well there too ... not good company to be keeping.
And as for those people who say "if you're not guilty, you've nothing to worry about," let me say this: mein farkin' gott, you've got a shock coming.
<strong>
Go read the Patriot Act and then edit your post to take out the stupid parts please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read it -- nothing new. You could be treated the same way BEFORE the Patriot Act, it just took more finesse on the govt. part.
And I don't dispute the reality of the CitzenCorps (or VolksSturm, or whatever the Nazis called it) but I refuse to see it as part of a conspiracy to subjugate the populace.
Again, nothing new here. Scary, but no different from what has been building up over the past 15 years.
Bush proposing "broad new Powers in Domestic security" (check NYTimes today Tuesday 16)
under consideration: a new law that will allow the military to operate "mre aggresively" within the borders of the United States.
Hey, that means they no longer need to fly 'black unmarked hellicopters' ... they don't need to hide it anymore at all....
just tally the tiny cuts . . .
. . . anybody have the presence of mind to actually make a list of the increasing dissapearence of our rights?
<strong>Yes do make a list. Let's see. We've lost ... ummmm .... Freedom to Terrorize?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about freedom to see a lawyer for your own encarcerated citizens?
The ability for the state to encarcerate US citizens without trial for an indefinite period?
In short you are wrong and uninformed.
Next?
<strong>Hmmm... I glanced over the background page on the whitehouse's site, and didn't notice anythig too horribly alarming. In any case, as long as we've got the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, I'm not gonna lose much sleep over this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know if this is tongue in cheek or not, but since there were no smilies, I'll treat it as if you were serious.
First, there is a well known saying by a former US Attorney that, "A Grand Jury will indict a hambuger." Once you are indicted, my friend, you are in serious trouble. You'll have to hire an attorney. He will be very expensive if he's any good. Defending against the better armed and better funded Feds is a very very expensive undertaking (that's why most people plead out regardless of their culpability). You will lose your job, before or after the case, it doesn't matter. Once you've been indicted as a terrorist, even if you aren't convicted, you'll always be tainted goods (think about people wrongly indicted for drug trafficking; they're always drug traffickers in the court of public opinion). So, to sum up, even if you are innocent, you will be bankrupt and without a job and everyone who reads the papers will think you are a terrorist or commie or whatever. Your life will be ruined.
I've seen it happen.
Now, for those of you who think this is just liberals tilting at windmills, I don't know what to say other than its in everybody's best interest to safe guard civil liberties just as it is in the interest of all to have law and order. I suggest that "liberal" is not co-extensive with "you attack the president, you must be a liberal bastard," nor is conservative with "everything the president does is good." What we should be focusing on is how to accomplish these goals; the content is what's important, not who is proposing them. Using these labels in a debate merely shifts the focus from the merits of the debate or content of the policy.
As for the comment that this is not a conscious effort to subjugate the people, I suggest that intent does not bear on the wisdom or unwisdom of the program. If the reasonably foreseeable end result is a substantial lessening of freedom and/or de facto oppression (or subjugation, which ever you prefer), the program is unwise and should not be implemented, no matter how good its creator's intentions are. I think the program is too similar to things that oppressive regimes have done in the past and the mere fact that it is proposed by a leader of a 'free' country does not cleanse it of this association. It is unwise.
Thoth
<strong>That's always been the case. Check the case law. Also note the recent court ruling that restates the ability of the court to review someone's status.
In short you are wrong and uninformed.
Next?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I'm not sure of what your talking about. I'm quite familliar with this area of law, and unless you specifically say which cases, you have not refuted anything. What "has always been the case." And, what do you mean by "status?"
"Next" isn't appropriate until you actually answer the question.
Thoth, JD
<strong>
Actually, I'm not sure of what your talking about. I'm quite familliar with this area of law, and unless you specifically say which cases, you have not refuted anything. What "has always been the case." And, what do you mean by "status?"
"Next" isn't appropriate until you actually answer the question.
Thoth, JD</strong><hr></blockquote>
During WW2 these types of cases came up. So go back and review the cases you know oh so well and get back to me. You say rights have been lost. Prove your case.
<strong>
During WW2 these types of cases came up. So go back and review the cases you know oh so well and get back to me. You say rights have been lost. Prove your case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you knew a damn thing about the law you'd know that Korematsu and its bretheren - the internment camp cases decided nearly 60 years ago - are of extremely questionable validity now. The Court has distanced itself from those decisions every chance it gets and they have not been cited for the substantive principle those cases decided by the Court in recent memory. Furthermore, if you knew anything other than the reflexive citation of these 2 cases that are trotted out every time the government wants to do something bad to a particular ethnic group, you'd know that Zadvydas v. US (2000) held that a person who was "removed" could not be held indefinitely pending deportation without a bail hearing. A person in such a situation has no right to remain in the US and probably committed a crime of violence to get deported in the first place, and yet his continuance in custody is subject to a bail hearing. The court went to great pains to distinguish Korematsu etc.
An additional distinguishing fact is that WWII was a declared war. I do not think that the joint resolution after 9/11 qualifies under the Constitution as a declaration of war and so does not justify the enhanced powers the Pres. is seeking. I, however, don't think the state of the nation has very much to do with it. There has been no explicit suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and until there has been, I doubt the Executive has the ability to detain to the extent they claim to have. To a limited extent, the government has the ability to detain but that still requires a bail hearing and speedy trial act (and 6th Amendment) guarantees apply.
As for the suspension of the right to counsel, no that hasn't always been the case. As a matter of fact, Yasser Esam Hamdi v. Rumsfeld currently pending in the US Ct. of Appeals for the 4th Cir. will decide whether a Fed Public Defender can meet with an enemy combatant w/o military officers present. You'll note the last bit about the presence of military officers. Noone argued (seriously anyway) that he didn't have the right to counsel.
Just remember that Plessy v. Fergusson was not explicitly overruled in Brown v. Bd. of Edu, but after that it was no longer good law.
So, maybe you should go Shepardize those "WWII" cases and get back to me. Or do you know what Shepards is?
Thoth
Can't you do better than that?
<strong> They've had judicial review and were found to be under the jurisdiction of the military. Just as captured German and Japanese solders were in WW2.
Can't you do better than that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I can, but my responses are obviously limited by your obtuse posts. Its difficult to discern exactly what you are claiming when you state things like "its always been that way, read the cases." When you do that, the content of your argument is about as much as "I'm right, you're wrong."
Anyway, the cases of German and Japanese soldiers were NOT analogous to American citizens being labelled unlawful combatants and so do not support your case. The former are 1) foreign, and 2) POW's with the attendant rights under conventions. In short, they were not "unlawful combatants," they were lawful combatants and not citizens. Furthermore, as the gov't would have it, not only would constitutional guarantees not apply, neither would the rights granted by the Geneva (and other conventions). The rules of the game would be promulgated by the tribunal itself. The internment cases then are the nearly the only support you can look to to detain citizens indefinitely other than the suspension of habeas cases in the INS situation (because those deal with indefinite captivity).
Oh, and there has been no judicial review of the current detainees status as being under military jurisdiction. That's exactly the point. The briefs the government has filed have stated that the Executive has the SOLE discretion to determine who and who is not an unlawful combatant and therefore amenable to have cases adjudicated in a military tribunal. I have seen and read these briefs. The discretion they claim is extraordinary. This point has not been decided. Lindh is not being tried as an unlawful combatant - that choice was made by the US attorney prosecuting him, not because a court decided his status.
Maybe its you who should try harder by trying to grasp the whole of the situation before forming your opinion, or, as it appears, making up "facts" to support your argument. It is not sufficient to say "well, its been done before" because the simple fact is, is that this is a unique situation and all of the previous factual and legal analogues are incomplete. Even the government attorneys I've spoken with think so.
You can try again but I've stopped listenting as its clear that you're here just to get a rise out of people, as usual. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Thoth
<strong>
You can try again but I've stopped listenting as its clear that you're here just to get a rise out of people, as usual. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>
My fault Thoth. I broke my new rule (Do Not Feed the Trolls).
silly man, just where did you get that phd?? we never had the freedom to terrorize, and taking away freedoms will not make terrorism go away...g