The Freepathon is on!!
This is an expensive operation
To keep it Going
Click the Logo
For the Secure Server
So9
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 |
The fact that they're military neither means we have to have them nor does it mean they have to be used in some unclear category of cases. Until you decide to move them out of the civilian courts, they aren't involved with the military in any way.
If you had suggested to one of the Founding Fathers that making the president commander in chief of the armed forces meant that some trials in America had to be done by the executive, what common law principle would they think of? Surely this can't be very hard for a legal expert such as yourself.
All members of the Court joined in rejecting the government's argument that the Bill of Rights simply did not apply in wartime. The majority opinion contains a somewhat rhetorical passage for which it is justly famous:
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. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
A little history.
George Bush would not be President today had conservatives known that he would instigate the biggest federal government power grab since FDR. I can assure you that he will not retain his office if this Act is not revisited by Congress.
Those are bizarre and inaccurate claims. Military cases are tried in military tribunals, frequently courts martial, on an almost daily basis. Obviously they are involved in the military in some way, by definition.
Yes. Military tribunals are used on an almost daily basis in America. Although the most frequent use of various forms of military tribunals revolves around American military personnel, such tribunals in America have also dealt with foreign sabotuers such as those released from German U-Boats onto the Eastern shoreboard of the U.S. during WW2, as well as for American citizens and non-citizens in Hawaii who provided the Japanese with naval photos of activity at Pearl Harbor prior to the peace-time Japanese sneak attack.
"There's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution to require anyone in the United States to be tried by the executive."
That really wasn't in question, certainly not by my intention. The closest requirement would be from Article II, Section 2, in that the commander in chief is by default compelled to ultimately reside over military affairs, including military tribunals.
"The treason of Benedict Arnold had been long premeditated. Passionate, discontented, constantly persuaded that he was neglected and ill treated by Congress, demanding from that body more than it could or would grant, his disaffection grew extreme. While in command in Philadelphia in 1778, his "illegal and oppressive acts" drew on him the censure of the Council of Pennsylvania, and finally subjected him to a trial by court-martial, which sentenced him to a reprimand from the commander-in-chief. By this time his treasonable sentiments were fully grown, and he began a secret correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton..."
Rubbish. You can't even name one specific "power" which has been "grabbed".
Courts martial are a type of military tribunal. Why does it matter to you what form of military tribunal is used?
Wouldn't you agree that the type of military tribunal form is irrelevent to the question of whether or not the Executive or Judicial branch has jurisdiction?
The Freepathon is on!!
This is an expensive operation
To keep it Going
Click the Logo
For the Secure Server
So9
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
Of course, out here in the real world, Bush created military tribunals that didn't exist before, so actually, cases are shifted away from regular courts to the tribunals. There's probably more. Just rest assured, you're wrong.
President Bush can create new courts-martial at his leisure, just as he can create other forms of similar military tribunals.
You are incorrect, however, when you claim that merely creating new tribunals would shift cases from "regular" (one presumes you mean "civilian") courts to military tribunals. The Executive Branch has first jurisdiction over military affairs, so it would be more accurate to say that President Bush is exercising his option to retain such military cases in military tribunals.
Further, what you advocate (i.e., shifting jurisdiction of military cases to civilian courts) could VIOLATE our Constitution's assignment of powers. Our Judicial Branch is not assigned ultimate control over military affairs, after all.
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.