Posted on 11/28/2001 6:33:06 AM PST by Registered
To: wideawake
But I hope her successful convalescence gives her time to rethink her assaults on American freedom. (Registered note: Regardng Sarah Brady's lung cancer)
When W and Ashcroft face death I wonder if they will rethink their assaults on American freedom?
33 posted on 11/27/01 7:08 PM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
When W and Ashcroft face death I wonder if they will rethink their assaults on American freedom
Be specific. Name all of these assaults on freedom that the citizens of the United States are being subjected to by Bush and Ashcroft.
94 posted on 11/27/01 8:26 PM Eastern by Registered
To: Registered
Here you go
101 posted on 11/27/01 8:42 PM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
The Village Voice!?!?!? Bwaaaahahahahaha! You are a work of art!
147 posted on 11/27/01 9:53 PM Eastern by Registered
To: Registered
Nat Hentoff remains the strongest defender of the Constitution in this country. The fact that you don't know this comes as no surprise.
156 posted on 11/28/01 7:13 AM Eastern by sakic
To: sakic
I know who the man is, however your apparent lemming-like approach to every word that proceedeth out of his mouth draws a shadow on your ability to defend what you said earlier. I just checked and Nat's article apparently hasn't been posted yet in the FR forum. Why don't you post it and let's start discussing the specifics of what Nat's concerns are with the USA PATRIOT Act. Of course, the brunt of his analysis came with the assistance of the beloved ACLU, so this could be a fun exercise.
In my mind your little link to his article in no way justifies the idiotic statement you made at the start of this thread. I'm not immune to making the same type of stupid statement you did, but at least when I make them I apologize and move on.
161 posted on 11/28/01 10:16 AM Eastern by Registered
...and now
| Nat Hentoff Giving the FBI a ‘Blank Warrant’ John Ashcroft v. the Constitution We're going to protect and honor the Constitution, and I don't have the authority to set it aside. If I had the authority to set it aside, this would be a dangerous government, and I wouldn't respect it. We'll not be driven to abandon our freedoms by those who would seek to destroy them. —Attorney General John Ashcroft, Legal Times, October 22 It is a good bill . . . that allows us to preserve our security . . . but also protect our liberties. —Patrick Leahy, Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, National Public Radio, October 26 George W. Bush, with great satisfaction, signed the USA PATRIOT Act on Friday, October 26, after both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved most of what John Ashcroft had urgently sent them, demanding that they move immediately to show the nation and the terrorists that we would surely prevail in this war for freedom. A few hours later, presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer held his regular televised press conference, attended by Washington's elite cadre of journalists, who asked no substantial questions about the new antiterrorism legislation. The subject was disposed of quickly. On the following Sunday morning's commentary and analysis programs, there were also no probing questions about what the bristling new law was doing to the Constitution. Not even Tim Russert, the most careful researcher among the Sunday hosts, paid it much mind. And in the weeks since, in most newspapers, and as usual, on both broadcast and cable television as well as radio, Americans who cared at all were not able to find news of how a good many of their fundamental liberties had been diminished. As George Melloan had said in the October 23 Wall Street Journal, "one of the most insidious things about terrorist attacks" is that "they engender an 'anything goes' mentality within the nation under attack. . . . Yet as both President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have observed, if the attacks force a general curtailment of civil liberties, the terrorists have won." Well, we've begun to lose that part of the battle. For the following guide to what's actually in the USA PATRIOT Act, I am indebted to the ACLU's extensively detailed fact sheets—which were sent to Congress and the press as the bill was being steamrollered through—along with the analyses by the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. Also included are interviews with staff members of both organizations and workers at other civil liberties bunkers. To begin with, because of the limited technology in his time, George Orwell could not have conceived of how pervasively we are now going to be surveilled. I have differed with the ACLU on some issues, but the work by its persistent Washington staff was extraordinarily comprehensive. Congress, however, was panicked; and the press, by and large, works hard to understand anthrax—but not the Constitution. I saw hardly any mention, by the way, of the fact that Congress was in such a rush to yield to most of John Ashcroft's demands that although there were some differences between the House and Senate bills, the time-honored practice of holding a conference between the two bodies to resolve the disagreements was abandoned. Instead, behind closed doors, the leaders worked out a "preconference" arrangement. Therefore, when this law is challenged in the courts—by the ACLU and others—the judges, without a formal conference report in front of them, will not have a clear understanding of the legislative intent of this law. Maybe that's what our leaders wanted. To begin with, because of the limited technology in his time, George Orwell could not have conceived of how pervasively we are now going to be surveilled. St. Petersburg Times syndicated columnist Robyn Blumner has noted that we are already changing from being citizens to being dossiers. But you ain't seen nothing yet. The USA PATRIOT Act has markedly loosened the standards for government electronic surveillance—of our computers, e-mail, Internet searches, and telephones. This means all kinds of telephones, including, for example, not only the pay phones that the suspect may be using, but any pay phones in the area of his or her travels. This vast expansion of eavesdropping is due to the law's extension of roving wiretaps, and to the one-stop national warrant that will cover a suspect anywhere he or she goes. That wouldn't have surprised Orwell. This peripatetic surveillance applies not only to terrorist investigations, but under some provisions of the law, to routine criminal investigations. As the ACLU emphasizes, this law "limits judicial oversight of electronic surveillance by: (i) subjecting private Internet communications to a minimal standard of [judicial] review; (ii) permitting law enforcement to obtain what would be the equivalent of a 'blank warrant' in the physical world; (iii) authorizing scattershot intelligence wiretap orders that need not specify the place to be searched or require that only the target's conversations be eavesdropped on; and (iv) allowing the FBI to use its 'intelligence' authority to circumvent the judicial review of the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment." (Probable cause means demonstrating that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur.) So say goodbye to the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, household papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, will not be violated; and no warrants will issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." Keep in mind that the new law's definition of "domestic terrorism" is so broad, as we shall see in future columns, that entirely innocent people can be swept into this surveillance dragnet. You are not immune. As law professor and privacy expert Jeffrey Rosen points out in the October 15 New Republic, "If [unbeknownst to you] your colleague is a target of [the already in-place] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Investigation [with its very low privacy standards], the government could tap all your [own] communications on a shared phone, work computer, or public library terminal." Furthermore, all this vast "intelligence" data can now be shared with the CIA, which is again allowed—despite its charter forbidding it to engage in internal security functions—to spy again on Americans in this country, and without a court order. People of a certain age may remember when the CIA did spy here on law-abiding dissenters, mostly on the left, in total contempt of the Constitution. Next week: The breaking in of your doors when you're not there for FBI secret searches ("black bag jobs") under the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act. Related Stories: "Military Justice Is to Justice as Military Music Is to Music" by Alan Dershowitz "No to Military Tribunals: They Are Not Fair" by Norman Siegel "Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals" by Nat Hentoff "Technology and Its Discontents: Cyber-libertarians, Technologists, and Congress Wrangle Over Electronic Privacy Issues During Wartime" by Brendan I. Koerner |
To: Registered
"...WTC did not occur because Americans have too much freedom.
It occurred because foreign terrorists have too much freedom on American soil.
# 4 by E. Pluribus Unum
************
That's not true.
The attack was made possible because our government
did not protect the security of our citizens,
which is it's only legitimate function.
The attack was made possible
because of our government's incompetence.
Our country's suffered highjackings before.
Who ignored the world-wide epidemic of terrorist attacks,
and the very real threat of attacks on our soil?
At one time, we required Air Marshalls on our airplanes because of highjackings.
Who decided that after a few years of quiet, Marshalls were no longer necessary?
It's been three months since the attack.
We still don't have Air Marshalls on our airplanes.
We still don't have the cockpit doors fixed.
We still don't have qualified, professional security men checking passengers.
The problem is not "too much freedom."
The problem is governmental stupidity,
and even with a Republican President,
the stupidity is still there.
You have your talking point, and you'll repeat it however inane it is. There's nothing in the Constitution creating military tribunals in the first place, let alone requiring them, let alone stating that certain groups must be tried by the executive. All you have is a slogan you remember from grade school civics, and you've spun off a novel legal doctrine having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual contents initially described by the slogan you've memorized. The Constitution does not say, "We the people say, separation of powers! Bicameralism! Rah! Rah rah rah! Voooote BUSH!!!"
BTW, what common law principle would come to mind back then if someone had suggested your doctrine at the time of the Founders? I'm asking to see if you have even a slight idea what ideas actually formed the provisions of the Constitution.
Glad to be appreciated.
To: exodus
Oh please.
The Nuremburg trials took place "in peace-time."
Do you think that there is some super-secret paragraph
in our Constitution that says that criminals get more rights
unless Congress writes "WAR" on a bill??
# 119 by Southack
************
The Nuremburg trials took place after the war was won,
that much is true.
They covered crimes committed during the war.
I don't claim any "secret" knowledge of the Constitution.
Do you?
What provision of the Constitution can you use
to justify trying civilian criminals as war criminals?
To: Registered
"EXCUSE me, but, didn't CONGRESS pass this 'Patriot Act'?
Where is the outrage for CONGRESS passsing this?
# 118 by _Jim
************
The outrage is there, _Jim.
Every member who voted to allow the President
to assume war powers without a Declaration of War
violated his Congressional oath of office.
To: ChareltonHest
"Why, specificly?"
# 114 by Southack
************
The 9-11 attacks killed about 5000 people.
The "Patriot Act" infringes on the rights of everyone who survived.
Our Founders considered those rights even more important than life.
"...a disrespect and disregard that climaxed in the reign of Zipperless-F*** Clinton -- means that without this pot of crap legislation more of us, more of the little people will be slaughtered to the murderous whimsies of the terrorists.
Sorry, sakic, the disrepair of the nation's government, the perversions to integrity of the last decades have brought this necessity of crap about.
It's a shower of s**t, but an unavoidable one now.
We just have to resolve to wash off thoroughly later -- and may that later be soon.
# 112 by bvw
************
Why not wash up now?
Clinton violated the law, I'm sure you'll agree.
Why do you allow the present government
to violate the law as well?
Without a Declaraion of War,
the President violates his oath of office
by assuming war powers.
Without a Declaration of War,
Congress collectively violates their oath of office
by allowing the President to assume war powers.
Without a Declaration of War,
military trials for terrorists
or any other criminal violate the law.
Without a Declaration of War,
the "Patriot Bill" becomes a permanent part of our law,
violating our freedom from now on,
instead of being a temporary
war-time measure to stop spies and saboteurs.
You're right. They're scumbags all on this one except for Feingold, but remember that if you substitute Clinton and Reno for Bush and Ashcroft you'd be wailing about the evil that had been committed.
There doesn't have to be anything specific about military tribunals in the Constitution, just as there doesn't have to be anything specific about the use of nuclear weapons in the Constitution, but in both instances the creation, deployment, and use of those tools falls underneath the assignment by our Constitution of control over our military by the Executive Branch. Your argument is a red herring.
The Executive Branch is over our entire military and its affairs. Moving part of those affairs from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch would VIOLATE the assignment of powers as laid forth in our Constitution.
Those who argue, as you do, for the use of civilian (i.e., Judicial Branch) trials for foreign warriors/terrorists, are advocating the abrogation of our Constitution with a direct attack on our foundation of national laws.
The war was over. We were at peace, and yet you claimed that no military tribunal could be used during peace-time (your word, not mine). Clearly the Nuremburg Trials prove your assertation to be dead wrong. Likewise, even though Japan had NOT declared war and even though the U.S. was at peace during the attack of Pearl Harbor, Japanese could be tried in military tribunals for those peace-time acts. This is because the ACTS themselves were acts of war, regardless of the declared "State" of war/peace in which we resided. Similarly, acts of war or terror, regardless of our declared condition of peace-time or war, can fall under military jurisdiction.
"What provision of the Constitution can you use to justify trying civilian criminals as war criminals?"
Once actions of criminals take on a military or terroristic aspect, said villians can fall underneath military jurisdiction. Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution then gives the Executive Branch full power over such military affairs (including trials).
Nuclear weapons are weapons. Military tribunals are courts, not "tools".
The Executive Branch is over our entire military and its affairs. Moving part of those affairs from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch would VIOLATE the assignment of powers as laid forth in our Constitution.
Cite the clause(s) supporting what you say. Not general principles you obviously don't understand, but the actual clauses.
Unless you can do that, your argument is just meaningless electrons.
Those who argue, as you do, for the use of civilian (i.e., Judicial Branch) trials for foreign warriors/terrorists, are advocating the abrogation of our Constitution with a direct attack on our foundation of national laws.
You don't know anything about the foundations of our laws. The Constitution is not a list of ill-defined slogans. It's a legal document.
You didn't answer my question. Do you have even a clue?
Rubbish. You've demonstrated no specific right for which U.S. citizens have "lost" due to the Patriot Act.
"Cite the clause(s) supporting what you say"
Article II. Section 2. U.S. Constitution.
Thus, Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution places the Executive Branch over our military affairs, including military tribunals. This doctine is so established in American law that it has remained unchallenged (realisticly) from the U.S. War of Northern Aggression, through The Great War, Truman's Nuremburg trials of post-WW2, "in-country" trials during the Vietnam War, to today.
Another way to mentally examine this issue is to consider that ALL U.S. warriors of all branches can be tried in UCMJ military tribunals, even during times of peace and even in the continental U.S. Likewise, foreign warriors can be tried in military tribunals. Merely being "foreign" doesn't exempt a warrior from American military tribunals, even if the act in question was commited here in the states, just as an American soldier can still be tried in military tribunals even if her crime was committed in the states.
Every aspect? You might want to check Article I, Section 8 on that. Leaving that aside, you've gone on at length that the president is commander in chief of the military and the militia, when in the actual service of the United States (I notice you truncated the quotation to leave that off). No one disputed this, and it does exactly nothing to prove your point. You're assuming that military tribunals are inherent in that, but you've done exactly nothing to prove it, until the next paragraph. On that next.
Another way to mentally examine this issue is to consider that ALL U.S. warriors of all branches can be tried in UCMJ military tribunals, even during times of peace and even in the continental U.S. Likewise, foreign warriors can be tried in military tribunals. Merely being "foreign" doesn't exempt a warrior from American military tribunals, even if the act in question was commited here in the states, just as an American soldier can still be tried in military tribunals even if her crime was committed in the states.
The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. The military tribunals we're talking about are not courts-martial under the UCMJ, follow different procedures, have different rules of evidence, and so on. We're not talking about trying them in regular military courts. Further, no one said they shouldn't be tried in military tribunals because they're foreign. I don't know where you got that from.
And why do you keep saying "warrior"? Have you read too much sword-and-sourcery stuff?
And I'm sure at one time not that many years ago we said that if they wanted our fingerprints they could take them off their throat. Sadly we are losing to incrementalism and it won't be that long before a DNA sample is mandatory for a great many things -- all in the name of safety and security. The mantra will be, "Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about."
On the contrary, military trials are military affairs. Military affairs are subordinate to the Executive Branch, per Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
One would have to claim that military tribunals are not military affairs to consistently believe otherwise (i.e., to hold the belief that military tribunals were not subordinate to the Executive Branch), and that begs the question of the very definition of "military"...
Actually, what you and others (who have criticized President Bush's EO on military tribunals) have suggested is that foreign warriors must be tried in U.S. civilian courts instead of regular military courts. You act (above) as if GWB's new military tribunals are defective because they aren't regular "courts martial", as if that somehow bolstered your contention that military tribunals of any sort aren't allowed for foreign warriors.
That's simply wrong. Be they U.S. soldiers or foreign soldiers (even religous jihad holy warriors), once they violate either the UCMJ or American lives/assets in acts of war or terror, they are subject to military jurisdiction. Whether the military uses regular courts martial or other forms of military tribunals is immaterial to the legal jurisdictional question. We aren't talking about setting up a new military court system to try foreign warriors for civil crimes such as jaywalking; we are talking about trying people who have attacked the U.S.
Sabotage, terrorism, and other acts of war by foreignors or members of the military are subject to military justice.
Historical examples ABOUND that support this point, including the famous Nuremburg Trials. Albert Speer, for instance, was even a civilian who was tried for war crimes at Nuremburg (and no one complained that the freaking sky was falling and that American rights were being violated by those military tribunals, either).
But what you and other chicken littles ARE calling is for is an unConstitutional shift of jurisdiction from military tribunals under the Executive Branch to civilian trials under the Judicial Branch, which is akin to Alan Dershowitcz suing President Truman to shift the Nuremburg military tribunals to our civilian federal court system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.