What Kind Of America Is This?

[Victor Galis]

"The government has treated me just fine, and most of you as well, even the ones who love to cry foul about each and every little thing."

-Doesnt' change that I have no vote in a government that has such control over my life. I've got more of a vote for Intel's board of directors, for God's sake

"All you do is rant and rave on online forums. It's actually rather pathetic.

Go sit on you hands and continue to do nothing as usual...but make sure to rant to me about how you disagree with it on poly k?"

-You know, I could probably be arrested and detained indefinitely if I did anything but rant on an online board at this point. I find my lack of civil liberties rather disturbing.

[oedo]

who needs trials when he´s got bombs?

what I find most worriing about the military tribunal is, that it is most likely made for those who are suspected terrorist which cannot be punished since there is no evidence for their guilt.
or can someone explain me why normal trials aren´t good enough for them?

[oedo]

...and btw, can one of you name anyone who is suspicious enough to be sent to the tribunal? there´s simply no one, that´s it.

[faded glory]

from what i heard its only people the terrorist suspect list. People like Ramsey yousef who accidentally turn up somewhere but have not yet bombed a place.

[drake]

-You know, I could probably be arrested and detained indefinitely if I did anything but rant on an online board at this point. I find my lack of civil liberties rather disturbing.

Meaning what? You'd resort to violenece to solve problems?

Cite a few civil liberties that you are lacking victor, I'm curious as to what you're talking about.

from what i heard its only people the terrorist suspect list.

Of course. Red tape needs to be cut some times to resolve things in a quick and appropriate fashion.

Last thing we need is a drawn out case like lockerbie.

I suppose some people would like to see the trials on court tv too

[Wraith]

--"The government has treated me just fine, and most of you as well,"

The government's done a lot to me, starting with taking nearly half my earnings. I could go on about this one (you should try starting your own business some time, for instance), but I won't bother, since you've got your mind made up. Let's just say that we want to make sure the government doesn't treat us any worse than it already has.

--"Go sit on you hands and continue to do nothing as usual.."

You're making assumptions here. You have no idea how many of us are active in politics, or in what manner. You don't know what I'm doing with, say, the EFF or the Libertarian Party. Please don't project.

Wraith
"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[MichaeltheGreat]

Beyond talk, has the administration clarified the scope of authority of these proposed military tribunals?

A military tribunal trying foreign terrorists wanted for attacks on the US, if they are captured outside the US as a result of military operations is one thing - it's entirely legal.

If they are captured in the US through law enforcement means, or extradited to the US, then an executive bypass of the judicial system and the Constitution is flatly unacceptable.

The only modern precedent in the US was the trial of the German saboteurs who landed via submarine in the US in 1942 and were promptly captured. But that was with foreign nationals who were agents of a government with whom the US was in a formal state of war, and the military trials of those individuals clearly fell within the permissible treatment under the Geneva convention of enemy saboteurs in time of war.

The legal framework for saboteurs in time of war is pretty clearly defined and well understood. The concept of "terrorism" and "terrorist acts" is a lot less clear.

I don't give a **** about the rights of terrorists either, in fact I have no problem with summary interrogation followed by summary execution of those positively identified as being part of the al Qaeda leadership, or for any other well known terrorist leaders.

The idea of a "special" extrajudicial court who could try anyone it chooses under a broad definition of terrorism related offenses is the most unprecendented and potentially dangerous abuse of the constitutional authority of the US government I've ever heard of. If it's an executive ordered military tribunal, the distinction between aliens and citizens is just a matter of the tribunal's convenience, as is the definition of what crimes it can try, and what constitutes adequate "evidence" of guilt.

For now, since the news articles have been extremely vague and I haven't seen anything concrete about the administration's plans, I'll withhold judgment, but this is the first suggestion from the administration that I consider truly alarming.

[Ecthy]

if I was a mix between HARDMAN and Bob D, I wouldn't only say what you can read in my sig, I'd even say "U ARE ALL GAY FASCIST YANKS"

but I'm not

now to give this post a point - MtG, how can you say that?

not enough? OK, here goes...

For now, since the news articles have been extremely vague and I haven't seen anything concrete about the administration's plans, I'll withhold judgment, but this is the first suggestion from the administration that I consider truly alarming.

What I find most interesting is the fact I haven't heard ANYTHING about it on the news here yet.... today I have read on www.n-tv.de that OBL has officially spoken out another warning he was going to utterly destroy the US soonish, which I haven't seen quoted here yet though it seems interesting to me.... but there's absolutely no news about any sort of special trialing being planned in the US... who knows...

[drake]

You're making assumptions here. You have no idea how many of us are active in politics, or in what manner. You don't know what I'm doing with, say, the EFF or the Libertarian Party. Please don't project.

Wasnt necessarily referring to you wraith, and if you are doing things to work towards your own goals, then congratulations. True, I don't have any clue about people's personal lives and I was clearly out of line by making such a blanket statement.

But it is very frustrating for me to hear someone tell me what I should think. What I should think is America, How I should think the government should work, what is best for me etc.

I will respectfully agree and disagree with others opinions and will gladly argue my views, but never would I go about trying to convince people what is best for them as individuals as some here try to do (preaching).

I understand things are very far from perfect, but such issues as taxes and money I just don't see as that important. If one can put food on their table every day, live comfortably and live life the way they want, I think there is little else one can ask for.

I believe although sometimes off the mark and sometimes plain wrong, the government of this country always has the best intentions in mind for its people, which is much more than you can say for many countries across the globe.

We have it so good here in the US. Most of us don't have any conception of what hunger and disease, and true poverty really is for I don't think any of us have lived it. We type at computers which cost more than people in third world countries make in a year. We play games and pay huge amounts of money for entertainment purposes alone.

As an american citizen, life on the whole, is pretty damn easy in comparison to other places in the world wouldnt you say? And hell yes it could be better, but for once I think people need to stop and say, it could also be a hell of a lot worse!

Change takes time. And america has made great strides in the last few centuries to bring true equality and yes, civil rights to its citizens. And I fully believe it will only get better and better as time goes on.

Anyway, this was a definite rant. I'm just happy to say that I appreciate everything this country has done for me. If it violates my rights a few times for the better of the whole, so be it. I'm comfortable with that.

[chequita guevara]

You're a good German, Drake.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The power to create a judiciary is soley the perogative of the Congress. This act by Bush is fundimentally unConstitutional. Even the military courts were established by Congress.

That's why they're called tribunals. They're special purpose courts, for use in time of war.

The Supreme Court already ruled in Noriega's case that most constitutional protections and restrictions don't apply to military or government actions outside the US's boundaries. (Noriega tried to claim evidence from the search of his headquarters and residence in Panama was inadmissible on Fourth Amendment grounds)

The real legal question (while everyone's assuming what the scope of these tribunals is going to be) comes into play only if the administration attempts to expand them to some form of domestic nexus. If US forces capture al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, there's nothing at all illegal about trying them in military tribunals.

[drake]

Whats that supposed to mean che

Maybe I am a schmuck, but I actually think that JFK's statement about not asking what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country is a goal that we all should strive for.

Of course such an idea is absurd to some people around here....

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're a good German, Drake.

someone is going to get banned

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've read through these three pages, and I don't think this point has been made; forgive me if it has:

The problem with analogizing this order to those issued in past wars (as posters here and tv commentators are doing) is that this isn't a war! There's been no declaration of war, there's been no specific country or even organization targeted. We're at war with "terrorism" -- and action and an idea, not a thing.

The targets will shift from time to time, just as the practice of states hosting terrorists changes, or just as the names or activities of terrorist groups changes. Abu Nidal was the big dog of the 80's, now it's OBL. It's pretty easy to distinguish, however, that we are not in a state of war with, say, Canada or Sweden.

There's a little trick with Afghanistan that kind of gets in the way of a formal declaration of war. We never recognized the Taleban as the government of Afghanistan in the first place. The real determinant of whether there's a state of war, and where it is, comes from Congress through it's special appropriations powers under the War Powers Act.

WWII ended -- and domestic restraints were lifted -- when the Axis powers surrendered;

Domestic restraints, yes, but the US imposed military law in Japan until 1952, retained Okinawa until 1972, and conducted trials and executions of non-combatants for several years after the war ended, in both Japan and Germany.

the Civil War ended when the South surrendered.

And southern states were administered under military courts and through occupation governments well after the end of the war. In addition, the military conducted trials of Lincoln's assassins, and their suspected accomplices, including those who had no connection whatsoever to the CSA government or military, after the end of armed hostilities.

But when does a war on terrorism end? We are never, ever, going to stop terrorism (just as we haven't stopped fascism or communism, in spite of winning the wars against both). A "war against terrorism" isn't an event with a clear endpoint; it is instead a state of being. The US has essentially announced that it is now in a permanent state of war, and wartime rules are needed indefinitely. Does that remind anyone else of 1984?

Not really (1984). The scope of the war and the targets are clearly very limited - this is nothing like the "We've always been at war with Eastasia" of 1984. Hell, the "state of war" doesn't even cover the entirety of US Central Command, just the current assigned operation area.

Internal security is nothing like it was in WW2, and not even close to real wartime security.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ecthelion


someone is going to get banned

No, but the implied reference is a little out of hand.