Preventive Detention
-
I'll suspend judgment until I know the full details, but Glenn Greenwald, a persistent critic of both Bush and Obama on civil liberties/rule of law issues, lays out the case against preventive detention here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/[^]
John Carson
-
I'll suspend judgment until I know the full details, but Glenn Greenwald, a persistent critic of both Bush and Obama on civil liberties/rule of law issues, lays out the case against preventive detention here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/[^]
John Carson
Whats scary is who can be deemed a terrorist. By changing America to a fascist nation, truly original Americans who want to set things right would be considered terrorists. With the world marching toward a world government, North America's nations will be consolidated into a superstate "The American Union", with the Amero as its currency, just like the EU. Once nations around the world are consolidated into superstates like the EU and AU, it will be further consolidated into a single unit with a world 'reserve' (inflatable) currency. With these changes on the way, there will be much protest. They are preparing for this by taking advantage of people prejudices towards these so called terrorists. They are preparing us, getting us used to the idea of prosecuting these terrorists any way they want to. So when the change obama promised comes, many red blooded Americans will become terrorists when they protest this change with force. Right now they are "dangerous extremists", who just might be secretly wiretapped and monitored. It is an outright takeover.
-
Whats scary is who can be deemed a terrorist. By changing America to a fascist nation, truly original Americans who want to set things right would be considered terrorists. With the world marching toward a world government, North America's nations will be consolidated into a superstate "The American Union", with the Amero as its currency, just like the EU. Once nations around the world are consolidated into superstates like the EU and AU, it will be further consolidated into a single unit with a world 'reserve' (inflatable) currency. With these changes on the way, there will be much protest. They are preparing for this by taking advantage of people prejudices towards these so called terrorists. They are preparing us, getting us used to the idea of prosecuting these terrorists any way they want to. So when the change obama promised comes, many red blooded Americans will become terrorists when they protest this change with force. Right now they are "dangerous extremists", who just might be secretly wiretapped and monitored. It is an outright takeover.
Intel 4004 wrote:
many red blooded Americans will become terrorists when they protest this change with force
Well, duh. Do you think you have to wear a head-covering and pray to Allah to be a terrorist?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I'll suspend judgment until I know the full details, but Glenn Greenwald, a persistent critic of both Bush and Obama on civil liberties/rule of law issues, lays out the case against preventive detention here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/[^]
John Carson
Interesting article and since I was against preventive detention under Bush (they should've been treated as POWs), I have no qualms about being agin' it now. However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia. (We do have treaties regarding this matter with Australia so that last is rhetorical and not meant to scare Christian into not coming back over.) The slippery slope argument is compelling - today enemy combatants, tomorrow gun-owners and returning vets - but there is almost no law on the books that is not capable of being abused by men who claim that the end justifies the means.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Interesting article and since I was against preventive detention under Bush (they should've been treated as POWs), I have no qualms about being agin' it now. However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia. (We do have treaties regarding this matter with Australia so that last is rhetorical and not meant to scare Christian into not coming back over.) The slippery slope argument is compelling - today enemy combatants, tomorrow gun-owners and returning vets - but there is almost no law on the books that is not capable of being abused by men who claim that the end justifies the means.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
With regards to American Citizens, from the article [quote]"preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law [/quote], is this not a case, that if this came to fruition, that the United States Bill of Rights is being dangerously ignored especially that which states "prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy.". In my opinion, ""preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment" is a basic violation of said Bill of Rights. And what of Habeas corpus ?
-
Interesting article and since I was against preventive detention under Bush (they should've been treated as POWs), I have no qualms about being agin' it now. However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia. (We do have treaties regarding this matter with Australia so that last is rhetorical and not meant to scare Christian into not coming back over.) The slippery slope argument is compelling - today enemy combatants, tomorrow gun-owners and returning vets - but there is almost no law on the books that is not capable of being abused by men who claim that the end justifies the means.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
"We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia.
I have heard Judge Napolitano [^]make the point that it is important to note the Constituition does not specifically refer to citizens, but to "persons" - an important distinction.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
With regards to American Citizens, from the article [quote]"preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law [/quote], is this not a case, that if this came to fruition, that the United States Bill of Rights is being dangerously ignored especially that which states "prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy.". In my opinion, ""preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment" is a basic violation of said Bill of Rights. And what of Habeas corpus ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In my opinion, ""preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment" is a basic violation of said Bill of Rights.
For American citizens. But other than the slippery slope argument, no indication has been made that Obama is talking about anything but a way to handle the detainees presently ensconced in Gitmo. In his speech, it is quite clear that he is referring to them. Certainly it has happened in our past, under FDR and Lincoln, that citizens were indefinitely detained and never brought to trial in violation of the Bill of Rights, so there is no reason to assume it could never happen again. However, short of another terrorist attack reaching or exceding the horror of 9/11, I do not see it happening. If there is such an attack, no matter on whose watch, the result will be, I am afraid, "Whatever it takes," and I don't mean violence done to a few prisoners. Indefinite detention of citizens will be the least of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Interesting article and since I was against preventive detention under Bush (they should've been treated as POWs), I have no qualms about being agin' it now. However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia. (We do have treaties regarding this matter with Australia so that last is rhetorical and not meant to scare Christian into not coming back over.) The slippery slope argument is compelling - today enemy combatants, tomorrow gun-owners and returning vets - but there is almost no law on the books that is not capable of being abused by men who claim that the end justifies the means.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia.
I think the "armed overthrow of the United States of America" is rather more than any terrorist organization is likely to come close to. But on the main question: I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has held in the past that there are certain rights to anyone who comes under US jurisdiction, citizen or not. The Supreme Court decisions that insisted on certain rights for Guantanamo Bay prisoners are recent examples. You may be interested in what James Madison thought about non-citizen's rights. http://volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml[^] As the author notes, the issue of military justice is a more complicated issue.
John Carson
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In my opinion, ""preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment" is a basic violation of said Bill of Rights.
For American citizens. But other than the slippery slope argument, no indication has been made that Obama is talking about anything but a way to handle the detainees presently ensconced in Gitmo. In his speech, it is quite clear that he is referring to them. Certainly it has happened in our past, under FDR and Lincoln, that citizens were indefinitely detained and never brought to trial in violation of the Bill of Rights, so there is no reason to assume it could never happen again. However, short of another terrorist attack reaching or exceding the horror of 9/11, I do not see it happening. If there is such an attack, no matter on whose watch, the result will be, I am afraid, "Whatever it takes," and I don't mean violence done to a few prisoners. Indefinite detention of citizens will be the least of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
However, from this[^] [quote]“We have these limited exceptions to the principle that we only hold people after conviction,” said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell. “But they are narrow exceptions, and we don’t want to expand them because they make us uncomfortable.”[/unquote] So how uncomfortable should Americans feel, or be made to feel in the glare of international focus.
-
Oakman wrote:
"We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia.
I have heard Judge Napolitano [^]make the point that it is important to note the Constituition does not specifically refer to citizens, but to "persons" - an important distinction.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
have heard Judge Napolitano [^]make the point that it is important to note the Constituition does not specifically refer to citizens, but to "persons" - an important distinction.
Good point. However, the preamble make it clear (for me) that the Constitution applies only to the U.S. and it's people: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's the entire preamble. I would argue that to be a member of the "People of the United States," you must owe allegiance to the United States and live on the soil of the United States. All others are people, certainly, and persons, too. But not "People of the United States." If one grants this definition, then anything within the document applies only to "People of the United States." If one doesn't, I would be interested in hear an explanation to diplomats living in their embassy why they are now subject to our laws and Constitution; and, simultaneously to the German Government why, no matter what Americans do or where they do it, they will be judged only by the U.S. in a U.S. Court. my $.02
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
However, there is a question that Greenwald doesn't seem to address: what are the Constitutional rights of foreigners who are suspected of plotting the armed overthrow the United States of America and who are captured while athey are their country is in a state of combat with the U.S.? The Constitution speaks of "We, the People," but to the best of my understanding that phrase does not refer to citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan or, for that matter, Australia.
I think the "armed overthrow of the United States of America" is rather more than any terrorist organization is likely to come close to. But on the main question: I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has held in the past that there are certain rights to anyone who comes under US jurisdiction, citizen or not. The Supreme Court decisions that insisted on certain rights for Guantanamo Bay prisoners are recent examples. You may be interested in what James Madison thought about non-citizen's rights. http://volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml[^] As the author notes, the issue of military justice is a more complicated issue.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court.
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
However, from this[^] [quote]“We have these limited exceptions to the principle that we only hold people after conviction,” said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell. “But they are narrow exceptions, and we don’t want to expand them because they make us uncomfortable.”[/unquote] So how uncomfortable should Americans feel, or be made to feel in the glare of international focus.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So how uncomfortable should Americans feel, or be made to feel in the glare of international focus.
I cannot begin to express my disdain for the "glare of international focus."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
I'll suspend judgment until I know the full details, but Glenn Greenwald, a persistent critic of both Bush and Obama on civil liberties/rule of law issues, lays out the case against preventive detention here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/[^]
John Carson
This is all such a load of blithering nonsense. We do not live in a perfect world. No legal system regardless of how well devised will ever be able to deal consistently with every possible challange the society that created that legal system might find itself confronted with. It is altogether appropriate that we as citizens be concerned about the potential for abuse of the laws which protect us from abuse from our own government. However, it is also altogether appropriate that we expect those laws to be able to protect us from threats outside of our own government. There is obviously likely to be no perfect means of achieving both of those goals. We have to risk one or the other. Relying upon our own history indicates that our institutions, at least in the US, are sufficiently robust to endure some period of erring on the side of providing for the physical security of the nation while risking some degree of abuse to ourselves from our own government. Frankly, I think we are a very long way indeed, even under Obama, from the need to be concerned about storm troopers invading our homes and sending us to concentration camps. It is altother appropriate that we take whatever actions are necessary to defend ourselves from the kind of violence these islamic terrorists seem determined to inflict upon us, even if that means denying them the same full degree of justice that we ordinarily reserve to ourselves. If the Islamic world does not like this, than it is their own responsibility to deal with the root casue of the problem themselves. We should stop blaming ourselves for the problem. And, in any case, it is entirely absurd to worry about abuse of our legal system for the purpose of protecting ourselves from violence, when that very same system has been routinely degraded over many decades for far less compelling reasons without a word of protest from those now so concerned about the rights of muslims who have hardly lifted a finger to secure those same rights within their own societies.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court.
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
I'd bet Ol' Hickory didn't either...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So how uncomfortable should Americans feel, or be made to feel in the glare of international focus.
I cannot begin to express my disdain for the "glare of international focus."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I cannot begin to express my disdain for the "glare of international focus."
I think that is one thing virtually all Americans agree on. If those morons would shine their little spot light in a more appropriate direction, they might notice something to be far more concerned about.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I cannot begin to express my disdain for the "glare of international focus."
I think that is one thing virtually all Americans agree on. If those morons would shine their little spot light in a more appropriate direction, they might notice something to be far more concerned about.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Generally, I suspect you and Jon are right. However, in terms of diplomacy and international trade, might this not become an unwelcome problem? An issue that could be blown out of all proportion?
Richard, this might surprise you, but when most AMericans look out at the rest of the world, we generally percieve a vast sea of humanity entirely incapable of pouring piss out of a boot. The blithering political incompetence of the Europeans, aledgedly the most advanced of the international community, has sucked the US into two world wars. And you are all so entirely incapable of self determination that any downturn in the US economy drops the entire damned world to its knees. That isn't exactly a scenario that engenders a great deal of respect for the glare of international focus from Americans. Hell, before Gore invented the internet, I don't think any AMericans even realized you were looking at us.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
I'd bet Ol' Hickory didn't either...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'd bet Ol' Hickory didn't either...
Given some of what Jackson did, I doubt he considered them human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I cannot begin to express my disdain for the "glare of international focus."
I think that is one thing virtually all Americans agree on. If those morons would shine their little spot light in a more appropriate direction, they might notice something to be far more concerned about.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
they might notice something to be far more concerned about
The credit-worthiness of the U.K., for starters. We may not be far behind, but they seem to be in a race with California to see whose can have more chickens come home to roost.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't know what Constitutional rights non-citizens have. That is up to the Supreme Court.
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S. I doubt sincerely that he thought that the Creek Indians who fought with the British in the War of 1812 deserved the protection of the Constitution as they neither owed alliegance to the U.S. nor conformed to its laws.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
By definition, they have none. They may be protected and controlled by laws, but the Constitution applies only to the people of the United States. (See my post to Mike.) Your citation of Madison also supports this position. To me, it seems clear that Madison was talking about aliens living on U.S. soil and conforming to the laws of the U.S.
The "conforming to laws" bit doesn't seem relevant. If you are talking about rights to trial by jury, then you are talking about people who are at least accused of not conforming to the laws. As for the people of the United States thing, there is an interesting and quite different approach here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html[^]
John Carson