Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[Ramo]

TOH the relative absence of attacks is according to many, due to precisely those measures.

If these guys who we're detaining are genuine threats who have been plotting terrorist acts, one would think that the Justice Dept. would be able to, you know, convict a few of them. There have only been a handful of terror-related convictions (39 as of a few months ago), and only a few of them were actually related to plots inside the US. Now, compare that to the huge number of people detained for long periods of time for terror-related reasons.

Just last week, there was yet another failure in convicting suspected terrorists. It turned out that the vital evidence Ashcroft said he gained from the broad search powers granted in the Patriot Act didn't amount to squat.

the one arrested at an airport has now been formally charged in the civilian courts.

Just now. After monumental pressure to do so. For three years.

If we did, than the liberty issue is THEIRS.

That's an incredibly rediculous thing to say. We abdicate responsibility for anything we do, as long as a person's state abdicates their own responsibilities? Last time I checked, we don't legally recognize the ownership of people by any body, including states.

Does this include folks like Arar?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo




Just now. After monumental pressure to do so. For three years.

Im not trying to start up the debate on whether the treatment of Padilla was correct or not. Merely trying to set to rights the implication that the US is now a police state.




"That's an incredibly rediculous thing to say. We abdicate responsibility for anything we do, as long as a person's state abdicates their own responsibilities? Last time I checked, we don't legally recognize the ownership of people by any body, including states.

Does this include folks like Arar?"

Let me clarfiy what I meant by liberty issue. The implication that has been made that the US is turning into a police state, that Americans are sacrificing their liberty for security. Perhaps we should be more solicitous for the rights of an Al Masri than the government of Germany is - for either moral or prudential grounds, or both. But if we are not, that hardly argues that the US is becoming a police state, or that Americans are lightly giving up THEIR liberty.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"If these guys who we're detaining are genuine threats who have been plotting terrorist acts, one would think that the Justice Dept. would be able to, you know, convict a few of them. "

As long as they (the overseas detainees) can be held without trial, where they can be kept isolated and used for , DoJ has little reason to attempt to convict them, rather than resort to court cases, which may well cause information to be leaked, etc. This may be an unwise policy - but it hardly demonstrates that the detained are not genuine threats.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


If these guys who we're detaining are genuine threats who have been plotting terrorist acts, one would think that the Justice Dept. would be able to, you know, convict a few of them. There have only been a handful of terror-related convictions (39 as of a few months ago), and only a few of them were actually related to plots inside the US. Now, compare that to the huge number of people detained for long periods of time for terror-related reasons.

How many are detained IN the US for terror related reasons - I think you may be conflating the detentions of those seized abroad, with detentions in the US (there were large numbes seized after 9/11 on either immigration or material witness grounds - all who were not charged were released. Who is there whos been detained on the US and not charged, and still held?)

[Ramo]

But if we are not, that hardly argues that the US is becoming a police state, or that Americans are lightly giving up THEIR liberty.

Ben Franklin didn't put as much stock into these sorts of distinctions as the muppets that run our gov't.

[Ramo]

How many are detained IN the US for terror related reasons - I think you may be conflating the detentions of those seized abroad, with detentions in the US (there were large numbes seized after 9/11 on either immigration or material witness grounds - all who were not charged were released. Who is there whos been detained on the US and not charged, and still held?)

Do you mean seizure in the US as the critical distinction? At the least, you have those few conviced for US-related terror plots. I don't know of a numerical breakdown.

But I don't know what you're getting at... I was lumping everyone into one category - human beings, therefore deserving due process.

As long as they (the overseas detainees) can be held without trial, where they can be kept isolated and used for , DoJ has little reason to attempt to convict them, rather than resort to court cases, which may well cause information to be leaked, etc. This may be an unwise policy - but it hardly demonstrates that the detained are not genuine threats.

Ok, let's suppose that all these people are genuine threats. And we have good reason to believe that they've been involved in terrorist acts. Then why are so many being periodically released, instead of tried? I mean, leaking evidence in a trial (and there are military tribunals, "secret evidence," etc. if Justice really wanted to go that route) doesn't seem quite as bad as letting a dangerous terrorist free, right? And there are cases when we know they were wrongly detained - as in some cases with bounty hunters, or when British had solid evidence that contradicted our presumptions, etc.

Your formulation that Gitmo, etc. are full of dangerous terrorists simply doesn't make sense.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Ben Franklin didn't put as much stock into these sorts of distinctions as the muppets that run our gov't.

Since Ben Franklin isnt here to clarify what distinctions he would or wouldnt make, I dont think anyone on either side can speak for him. He wasnt above supporting a Constitution that acknowledged slavery, and deferred the abolition of the slave trade, despite his strong opposition to slavery, so I suspect his take might be more nuanced than that of folks on either side.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

But I don't know what you're getting at... I was lumping everyone into one category - human beings, therefore deserving due process.

I was specifically making distinctions, in order to take issue with some of the more extreme statements here.

Distinctions are necessary in time of war. Not everyone is entitled to the same rights - as the Geneva conventions make clear. And what they are entitled too is determined by circumstance - we gave due process to German and Japanese leaders AFTER WW2 - but we, in effect, assasinated Yamamoto, during the war. The problem with this administration has been their FAILURE to draw adequate distinctions - the failure to distinguish between high level AQ leaders and everyone scooped up in Afghanistan, between AQ members and insurgents in Iraq, etc, etc.

[Ramo]

Yamamoto wasn't under our control when he was killed. We're talking about people securely under our control, who can be brought to functioning courts. There's no comparison.

The problem isn't that the Bush Admin is not making the distinction between types of detainees, but that they have created a legal limbo practically immune to external scrutiny. And then they put everyone they possibly could into this limbo.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yamamoto wasn't under our control when he was killed. We're talking about people securely under our control, who can be brought to functioning courts. There's no comparison.

And of course we're not assasinating people in our control (where someone has died under interogation, thats terrible, and requires major investigation) Im merely making the point that different circumstances require different approaches, even for the same individuals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
, but that they have created a legal limbo practically immune to external scrutiny. And then they put everyone they possibly could into this limbo.

IE they were failing to make important distinctions - apparently.

[Mr. Harley]

Ramo and LOM - nice exchange.

LOM - Ben Franklin very much wanted to eliminate slavery, but realized that the real politik of the time prevented it. Franklin was heavily involved in the abolition movement, and in fact "One of his last public acts was writing an anti-slavery treatise in 1789."

His take would not be more nuanced - however, his votes would and he probably would have voted for the Patriot Act, realizing it's inevitability at the time, while attaching sunset provisions on it. He also would have been very active against it. His actions would have been nuanced, but his principles, and opposition, would not have been and he would have made the distinction clearly and distinctly - as he did with slavery. He understood the concept that a true compromise usually leaves everyone feeling disgruntled.

On that topic, the Padilla case was anything but constitutional. Next time you are charged, do you want to be held incommunicado in a military brig for three years, without access to a lawyer? THAT is constitutional!?! Scalia and Stevens dissented on the vague, constitutionally lousy decision that de facto said that he had to be eventually charged. Both of them, from opposite sides, are often some of the purest constitutional scholars on the court - they just read it very differently. Yet here they agreed.

You also didn't look at the cases I mentioned, Peace Activists banned from air travel for a significant length of time, secret non-judicial searches without warrants, monitoring of peace activists and other dissenters, massive policing of protestors during the political season, etc. Hell, look at what happened at the WTO meetings in DC – police arrested people dressed a certain way with cell phones, prior to ANY violence occurring. Franklin is rolling in his grave.

I am not suggesting that the US is currently becoming Putin’s guided democracy. I am stating that we are in the process of tearing down the protections and processes that prevent that. I note that you did not take issue that we DO have leaders that we want the US version of that, with a heavily Christian flavor thrown in. If you look at all the suggestions from the right stating that the media should police itself, and that it is disloyal to so much a criticize the government in this time of war. Also, the statements that anyone opposing this administration is disloyal.

Before you dismiss this as simple political rhetoric – we have had not one but two anti-sedition acts in the US. First, from Adams and the Federalists.

Under the threat of war with France, Congress in 1798 passed four laws in an effort to strengthen the Federal government. Known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the legislation sponsored by the Federalists was also intended to quell any political opposition from the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson.
The first of the laws was the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress on June 18. This act required that aliens be residents for 14 years instead of 5 years before they became eligible for U.S. citizenship.
Congress then passed the Alien Act on June 25, authorizing the President to deport aliens "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" during peacetime.
The third law, the Alien Enemies Act, was enacted by Congress on July 6. This act allowed the wartime arrest, imprisonment and deportation of any alien subject to an enemy power.
The last of the laws, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14 declared that any treasonable activity, including the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing," was a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. By virtue of this legislation twenty-five men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down.
One of the men arrested was Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Charged with libeling President Adams, Bache's arrest erupted in a public outcry against all of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Many Americans questioned the constitutionality of these laws. Indeed, public opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was so great that they were in part responsible for the election of Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, to the presidency in 1800. Once in office, Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Sedition Act, while Congress restored all fines paid with interest.

Secondly, from Wilson and the Republicans – and note that this was used to break unions, etc.

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

We had a case here in Kentucky, at Fort Campbell, where a US army soldier was detained, as was her husband, and she was forced to resign. Neither she nor he had done anything, except for the fact that he was an Arab national. So during the post 9-11 economic slowdown – she looses her employment. Someone makes up files on her, etc. – for NO compelling reason. LOM, there are multiple cases like this.

Americans were VERY comfortable surrendering other people’s liberty, though they then fussed when that impacted them. That’s why I am utterly opposed to all these so-called anti-terror measures, and the treatment of suspected terrorists. Once you consider the behavior acceptable some of the time, you’ve crossed a threshold. From then on you are trying to put the genii back in the bottle. King Solomon stuck it in there for a reason, as did our founding fathers. Leave it in the bottle.

[Mr. Harley]

Ramo and LOM - nice exchange.

LOM - Ben Franklin very much wanted to eliminate slavery, but realized that the real politik of the time prevented it. Franklin was heavily involved in the abolition movement, and in fact "One of his last public acts was writing an anti-slavery treatise in 1789."

His take would not be more nuanced - however, his votes would and he probably would have voted for the Patriot Act, realizing it's inevitability at the time, while attaching sunset provisions on it. He also would have been very active against it. His actions would have been nuanced, but his principles, and opposition, would not have been and he would have made the distinction clearly and distinctly - as he did with slavery. He understood the concept that a true compromise usually leaves everyone feeling disgruntled.

On that topic, the Padilla case was anything but constitutional. Next time you are charged, do you want to be held incommunicado in a military brig for three years, without access to a lawyer? THAT is constitutional!?! Scalia and Stevens dissented on the vague, constitutionally lousy decision that de facto said that he had to be eventually charged. Both of them, from opposite sides, are often some of the purest constitutional scholars on the court - they just read it very differently. Yet here they agreed.

You also didn't look at the cases I mentioned, Peace Activists banned from air travel for a significant length of time, secret non-judicial searches without warrants, monitoring of peace activists and other dissenters, massive policing of protestors during the political season, etc. Hell, look at what happened at the WTO meetings in DC – police arrested people dressed a certain way with cell phones, prior to ANY violence occurring. Franklin is rolling in his grave.

I am not suggesting that the US is currently becoming Putin’s guided democracy. I am stating that we are in the process of tearing down the protections and processes that prevent that. I note that you did not take issue that we DO have leaders that we want the US version of that, with a heavily Christian flavor thrown in. If you look at all the suggestions from the right stating that the media should police itself, and that it is disloyal to so much a criticize the government in this time of war. Also, the statements that anyone opposing this administration is disloyal.

Before you dismiss this as simple political rhetoric – we have had not one but two anti-sedition acts in the US. First, from Adams and the Federalists.

Under the threat of war with France, Congress in 1798 passed four laws in an effort to strengthen the Federal government. Known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the legislation sponsored by the Federalists was also intended to quell any political opposition from the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson.
The first of the laws was the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress on June 18. This act required that aliens be residents for 14 years instead of 5 years before they became eligible for U.S. citizenship.
Congress then passed the Alien Act on June 25, authorizing the President to deport aliens "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" during peacetime.
The third law, the Alien Enemies Act, was enacted by Congress on July 6. This act allowed the wartime arrest, imprisonment and deportation of any alien subject to an enemy power.
The last of the laws, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14 declared that any treasonable activity, including the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing," was a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. By virtue of this legislation twenty-five men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down.
One of the men arrested was Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Charged with libeling President Adams, Bache's arrest erupted in a public outcry against all of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Many Americans questioned the constitutionality of these laws. Indeed, public opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was so great that they were in part responsible for the election of Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, to the presidency in 1800. Once in office, Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Sedition Act, while Congress restored all fines paid with interest.

Secondly, from Wilson and the Republicans – and note that this was used to break unions, etc.

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

We had a case here in Kentucky, at Fort Campbell, where a US army soldier was detained, as was her husband, and she was forced to resign. Neither she nor he had done anything, except for the fact that he was an Arab national. So during the post 9-11 economic slowdown – she looses her employment. Someone makes up files on her, etc. – for NO compelling reason. LOM, there are multiple cases like this.

Americans were VERY comfortable surrendering other people’s liberty, though they then fussed when that impacted them. That’s why I am utterly opposed to all these so-called anti-terror measures, and the treatment of suspected terrorists. Once you consider the behavior acceptable some of the time, you’ve crossed a threshold. From then on you are trying to put the genii back in the bottle. King Solomon stuck it in there for a reason, as did our founding fathers. Leave it in the bottle.

[Mr. Harley]

However, if you have a convicted terrorist - I would be very comfortable with research into chemical and/or brain scan techniques to determine the truth as told by convicted terrorists. While the drug part of that is in violation of the US law and the UN convention, I would support our withdrawal from those provisions, and research into it.

Why? Because of the immanent danger point. However, torture is notoriously unreliable. That is well documents. Some fascinating work has been done with PET scans, and the monitoring of eye movements, in determining when someone is lying. Combine it with a super Sodium Pentothal - whose problem is that with leading questions, you can get anyone to admit to anything, it's not that it is a useless tool but you have to work hard to NOT abuse it - and that I could support. Plus the actual interviews would be subject to judicial review, and evidence so obtained must pass heavy review - just like the evidence from children in sex abuse cases, and for similar reasons. That is something I could support.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
Ramo and LOM - nice exchange.

LOM - Ben Franklin very much wanted to eliminate slavery, but realized that the real politik of the time prevented it. Franklin was heavily involved in the abolition movement, and in fact "One of his last public acts was writing an anti-slavery treatise in 1789."

Nice post.

Clement valindginham (held and later expelled from the US, under martial law) and the Pres (Lincoln) use of mil detention withouit trial is more to the point however, it was that which gave the US the legal prcedednt to have the right to detain national, and forgien nationals over and above and withoput reference to the constitoion and international law. see the prize case for euopeans and CSA naval members tried as pirates.