Bill of Rights trashed in "war" on terrorism

[SlowwHand]

Lincoln wanted ! You're in deep now, Lincoln!

[DinoDoc]

I already have a thread on this subject. Copycat thread!

[Lincoln]

Sorry, I didn't notice.

[Guynemer]

Yeah, but your thread doesn't have Giancarlo.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Lincoln wanted ! You're in deep now, Lincoln!

Actually I did not have a problem with Lincoln doing that but I think this is a bit different. In the case of the Civil War there were clearly definied camps that opposed each other as in most wars. Now however we do not have a clearly defined enemy. Timothy Mc Veigh for example would certainly be called a terrorist. Should he have been given a civilian trial? I agree that in time of real war it is necessary to suspend certain rights and the Constitution allows for that as well.

What we have here is a quagmire that will destroy our liberties as the 'war' progresses without an end.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Guynemer


WRONG, Giancarlo. He is NOT GUILTY until proven otherwise in a court of law. And NOT a military court, either.

THAT is the law of the land. What Ashcroft has done is illegal.

I should probably read up on this story more before commenting, but I just can't be bothered right now... from what I can gather from this thread, my worries about Ashcroft are being proven correct.

Giancarlo, I don't care if this guy is the Devil himself, if he's a U.S. Citizen, he has certain rights under the law. Those rights appear to have been violated. If he was stripped of citizenship, and therefore I'd like to know why.

This is what is referred to as a "slippery slope." In the case of this guy, who is accused of a truely dastardly crime, many people would be inclined to turn a blind eye to the violation of his rights. And so the slide downhill begins.

Never, ever, trust a politician. There are always examples of those who genuinely seek to serve their country, but there are so many more who seek personal gain. Hell, even many of those who seek to do good come to believe that the ends justify the means - people like Ashcroft. I don't think the man is evil, but I do think he has a dangerously autocratic mindset.

-Arrian

[Jac de Molay]

Fyi. The precedent on which the current military tribunal system is based on involved 8 Nazi saboteurs in 1943, one of which was a US citizen. The SCUSA ruled at the time that all wartime enemies of the state, regardless of citizenship, were still considered "enemy belligerents".

Based on this tenuous precedent, Padilla can be tried in a military tribunal. On the question of indefinite detention, two recent Federal court rulings (that I dont have handy) ruled against the government in keeping material witnesses indefinitely in criminal investigations, as well as granting access to counsel to persons being held as enemy combatants (in the case of one Yasser Esam Hamdi)

thanks
DAve

[Arrian]

Thanks for the info, Dave.

-Arrian

[monkspider]

I'm totally with Lincoln on this one. It is truly an issue in which the far-right and far-left can bond on. It is scary indeed to consider the implications of the powers being granted to the government in the name of defending the country in this perpetual war against terrorism. Heck, it is conceivable for them to lock me up for writing this "unpatriotic" post. But as long as people are more concerned about buying that new Camaro than anything else, this abandonment of the freedoms that this country is built on will go largely unnoticed.

[Lincoln]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, beforetheHouse of Commons,
18 November1783

[monkspider]

Good quote Linc

[Jac de Molay]

Heck, it is conceivable for them to lock me up for writing this "unpatriotic" post.

I can relate, but the administration claims that these tribunals were only to be utilized in very special circumstances. Supposedly, this man (padilla) was being utilized by Al-qaeda, because of his citizenship status, for recon and intelligence purposes. His ethnicity and citizenship provided perfect cover for such undertakings. Should he have access to counsel? Definitely. A speedy and fair trial? Yes. But this isn't somebody you release on bail, is it? Especially when he could be considered a valuable source of information.

The same detention of some 1,200 ME immigrants under the same circumstances is entirely a different story. The courts seem to be slowly coming around on this one, thank goodness.

Dave

[Guynemer]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should be let out on bail, Dave. But to hold him indefinitely, with any future trial being a military tribunal--that is clearly antithetical to American law.

[SlowwHand]

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.
--John F. Kennedy


The constitution gives every American the inalienable right to make a damn fool of himself.
--John Ciardi


I slept, and dreamed that life was Beauty; I woke, and found that life was Duty.
--Ellen Sturgis Hooper (1816-1841)



People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use.
--Kierkegaard


Democracy's the worst form of government except for all the others.
--Winston Churchill

[Giancarlo]

Okay, okay... you people do have a point. But I got a point too and that is national security. Is there a middle area here? I don't want a police state and personally don't want the government snooping in individual privacy. It is hard to generate a conclusion on this issue. So I will say I am unsure. On one hand the guy should thrown in jail without a trial because he had plans to build dirty nukes, but on other hand he should get a trial to maintain the laws set and kept by the American Government since independence.