Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[Mr. Harley]

Nicklow - what is interesting wsa that Lincoln lost most of his cases after the war - at least reference civilians held outside the actual areas in revolt (the primary case was in Ohio, I cannot remember the actual name I've posted on it in the past). The current justifications are more based on WW1 and WW2, especially the latter. I am not that familiar with the CSA case, so I will have to read up on it - I know of it, but I don't really know it well enough to discuss it properly.

[lord of the mark]

Mr. Harley

I did not discuss everything you raise. I focused on the ones where I know the empirical facts, more or less, and the question was interpretation. Which were also the ones you focused on in your OP.

[lord of the mark]

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,

Cites please. IIUC searches, including secret ones (snoop and leave) under the Patriot act do require warrents. What doesnt require a warrent is a request for telephone or bank records - but THATS not a search of you or your home, which is why it passed constitutional muster. But even that has been challenged in the Senate, and may not make it into Patriot Act II.

And cites on the "peace activists" on the no fly lists.

[Ramo]

I assume that you're referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act (which allows warrantless searches of any business records in any investigation that the gov't claims is related to terrorism, including library and book store records). It's not a "request," but an order. And that's pretty damn unconstitutional.

(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html

[Ramo]

Speaking of which, Feingold is leading a filibuster against the conference committee'sPatriot Act Reauthorization (which is much closer to the House version than the Senate version, and not a single Dem conferee signed accepted it) right now. This guy's awesome.

So far, IIRC 11 people have signed onto the Filibuster, including Reid as well as four Republicans. That's probably going to increase.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
Nicklow - what is interesting wsa that Lincoln lost most of his cases after the war - at least reference civilians held outside the actual areas in revolt (the primary case was in Ohio, I cannot remember the actual name I've posted on it in the past). The current justifications are more based on WW1 and WW2, especially the latter. I am not that familiar with the CSA case, so I will have to read up on it - I know of it, but I don't really know it well enough to discuss it properly.

The prize case was intresting because it showed the limits of civil law in (Government lost in 61) aplication to how the administration wanted to solve problems, ie hang CSA naval, and other nationals taken in their service, as pirates the existing law put restrictions on how the administration could act, hence the move to military tribunals that were above and beyond the existing law, and indeed the constition.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-14-2002/vo18no01_tribunals.htm

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS


According to Merkel, Condi told her that a mistake was made in the Masri case. Condi was at the same press conference, so she could have explained further, if she chose. But she didn't.

Rice said at the conference that she could not comment on specific cases. Her aides later stressed to reporters that Rice has not told Merkel a mistake had been made.

What she did say at the press conference was: "Any policy will sometimes result in errors, and when it happens we will do everything we can to rectify it."

That's an open-ended statement that does not accept responsibility, nor reject it.

[lord of the mark]

flash - The white house has now agreed to support the McCain amendment banning cruel and inhumane techniques Interrogation techniques.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I assume that you're referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act (which allows warrantless searches of any business records in any investigation that the gov't claims is related to terrorism, including library and book store records). It's not a "request," but an order. And that's pretty damn unconstitutional.


http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html

I miswrote in using request - i didnt mean to imply it was voluntary. IIUC the courts have nonetheless not interpretated it to be the same as a search under the 4th amendment.

Which doesnt mean the Dems are wrong to filibuster. Not everything thats constitutional is a good idea.

[Ramo]

How exactly isn't it a search in the 4th Amendment sense?

And the Courts certainly haven't made such an interpretation since there has yet to be a case challenging Section 215. There are a couple cases in one of the Appeals Courts dealing with National Security Letters (which the gov't has used to attain library records), but they have delayed making a decision until after the Patriot Act reauthorization debate in Congress.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Winston
Boo-hoo.

I'd be more concerned about the suspected terrorists that aren't yet incarcerated.

Does the spectre of terrorism mean that we chuck the whole "Innocent until Proven Guilty" bit out the window? That and the Habeas Corpus thing, which I believe applies, at least somewhat.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

And the Courts certainly haven't made such an interpretation since there has yet to be a case challenging Section 215. There are a couple cases in one of the Appeals Courts dealing with National Security Letters (which the gov't has used to attain library records), but they have delayed making a decision until after the Patriot Act reauthorization debate in Congress.

thanks for the info.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And to the Americans or pro-Americans here, may I remind you of the following quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Now who coined that phrase eh?

Obviously a Frenchie-loving America-hater who thought that opening windows in winter and flying kites during storms was a good idea.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Regardless, your translation is correct, although taken to an extreeme. We live in a society that cannot e absolutes regarding civil liberties and still remain safe. This has to be laid out in a matter of degrees. In the current situation (the one stemming from 9/11), we live in a time that requires more security in order to live. I like the line we have taken.

Even in this current situation, I personally feel that Liberty > Security. In fact, I can't think of a single situation where Security > Liberty.

Then again, for some unknown reason, I always thought that whole "Don't Tread on Me" thing was a noble clarion call. Now I hear it's unpatriotic to oppose those that would seek to trample our freedoms~ how times have changed.

[Q Classic]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Donegeal, you calim this quote for your argument, but I'll claim it for my own--the very founding principles on which this once-great nation was based on rely entirely upon the inalienable rights of the people to seek happiness, liberty, and life. Abridging the liberty directly imposes upon the many's ability to seek happiness; the inability of the many to seek happiness directly affects the quality of their life.

A secure state is a static state; one needs to look no further than the frigid inertia of any of the Soviet states to know that security that abridges liberties do nothing to stop crime, and the lives they had were hardly wonderful ones at all.

Sure, you make do with what you have--but I have a feeling that many of us, who believe that having the full, rich palette of life experiences that can only come from unfettered liberty is worth more than a life that is forced into three colors.

The needs of the many--that is to say, their freedom to pursue happiness and the liberty to make choices to better color their lives--outweigh the needs of the few--that is to say, the unreasonable demand of being mollycoddled from cradle-to-grave, secured and protected from anything negative which may happen.

White padded cells are secure.
The lovely grass fields of Millenium Park are not.

I don't always enjoy the outside all that much, but given the choice, I'll take the liberty of unsecured, open spaces of Millenium Park.

Personally, I feel that getting double checked at the airport, or, heaven forbid, having to take my shoes off, is well worth not having another 9/11. We appearently differ on this...

One of the more checkered, but greater, Presidents this country has ever had is quoted to have said, "Speak softly but carry a big stick." Indeed, he's not the only one to have suggested such a thing--examples abound in texts from the Tao Te Ching and the Bible to modern business strategy books, which all boil down to the same thing: Power is best used invisibly.

Everything you see at the airport is a show of force, all sound and fury, but in the end, fairly worthless. Countries which have had more experience with airport terrorism (I'm thinking of Israel and SKorea) know by now that you don't stick all the machinery out for everyone to see--you keep it sequestered from the prying eyes of any who would seek to do harm. X-Ray machines, scanning devices, all of that is kept underground and secured, so that if any package or object does detonate, it doesn't detonate in the terminal next to the ticketing counters, but in a location where regular civilians won't get harmed.

Even the shoe thing is a ridiculous request--one terrorist tries to light his shoes on fire, and fails. Now, everyone is required to remove their shoes for inspection? Honestly, it sounds like we're investing money to stop dramatic, improbable events while ignoring more likely situations. Billions went into anthrax vaccinations and other possible bio-terrorist situations, all better suited to Hollywood Popcorn flicks, and now we're woefully underprepared for... avian flu.

Don't get me wrong--there's nothing wrong with the separation of the passenger concourses and the terminals, there's nothing wrong with the metal detectors machines and the metal detecting bars; heck, I don't even mind the x-ray machines for the carry-on luggage. All that's fine. It's the big, hulking machines for the checked luggage that's in full view of everyone--why would you create a vulnerability like that, if you were truly interested in actual security, rather than the trappings thereof?

Only a few societies trumpet and glorify displays of power and security with such hubris. None of them, until recently, were modern democracies.