Actually, the usual formulation is: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
We must never let anybody, not even Republicans that you trust violate due process. It removes the jury box from the protection plan and makes the ammo box the only alternative when tyranny threatens.
If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.
That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. This is a continuing criminal conspiracy and the leader of the crime is asking to be reelected. Outrageous!!!
You wrote:
"If you want this nation to endure as a free constitutional republic, you will fight for due process, no matter who is in office, no matter what the crisis of the moment is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS possible without putting the nation at risk of destruction or enslavement.
That is the libertarian principle applicable here and that is the constitutional principle applicable here. What Lincoln did, what FDR did and what Bush did is unforgiveable. And I don't even see him saying that maybe he was wrong. Jose Padilla still sits in jail, there still has been no charge against him. "
First, thanks for the more complete exposition:
(soap box, etc.)
Second, I am NOT trying to start a flame war.
I was intending humor.
Third, I have not thought this issue all the way through
to my satisfaction. I agree about the dangers of the
Patriot Act if misapplied. I am much more concerned,
however, about the character of the individuals in
positions of authority. The Clintonistas needed no
Patriot Act for the atrocities at Ruby Ridge, Waco,
and with Elian Gonzalez. And I am not satisfied that
justice was ever served upon the perpetrators within
the bureaucracy, let alone upon the front line troops.(*)
As far as your assertions go, I agree with the risk,
but not necessarily with the results.
Lincoln-are you talking about the arrest warrant for
Taney; suspension of habeas corpus; or what?
FDR-not sure what you refer to here; please elaborate.
Bush-Padilla: Are no charges filed? Or no *public* charges?
I seem to recall he was accused of wanting to detonate
a radioactive device -- whether improv. neutron bomb,
or just conventional explosives laced with radioactive
material, I don't know.
Two key issues from my point of view:
1) Consent of the governed. In virtually every dispute
between a govt. and those seeking to overturn or replace it, there is a disagreement. Governments want to hold
on to power, legitimate or not; those advocating or
fighting for removal of government always claim to be
fighting injustice. How _does_ one tell the difference?
Socially, the key seems to be the degree of popular support. But this is not infallible--recall the 'Good
Germans' who let the Nazi system go unchallenged. And
if you claim "oppression" by the govt., every splinter
group in the world claims to be oppressed. In a humorous
vein, recall the discussion between Arthur and the smart-ass peasant at the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail "Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed"; or look at the loopy
protesters outside the RNC.
2) The actual danger to the govt. Remember that in Lincoln's day, we had an actual CIVIL WAR on US Soil.
The possibility existed not just of some states seceding,
but the destruction of the current US constitutional
system of government. Yes, I agree, states' rights
took a beating (with consequent loss of freedom)--and
what we have left now is less than we did, what with
guarantee of due process (rubber stamp, going through
the motions of justice) rather than real justice.
But maybe Lincoln wouldn't have been so draconian IF
the threat wasn't so severe: and the states' rights
most vocal advocates let themselves be associated with
the cause of slavery, thereby discrediting their
cause possibly for CENTURIES. Not too bright, that.
My point here is that desperate times call for extreme
measures. IF Padillo really did want to set off a nuke,
how much should we support him; but if the Clinton-types
see a precedent, then political enemies will
just 'disappear' to be accused of 'Heinous Crimes Against the State (TM)'.
One last point. Since we are fighting a war on terror
by means of intelligence, electronic intercepts, etc. the
factors Operational Security become important. How
are we to assure the govt. isn't making things up, while
still safeguarding the govt. sources to that we do not
tip our hand about where we are getting the information
(to make sure the rest of us stay safe)? Would you support
in-camera review by a panel of judges?
(*) One could make an analogy to the govt's behavior in these episodes to the John Kerry 1971 testimony before congress. But that is a whole different thread / flame war.