Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
From the Small-But-Important Victories Dept.
Headline from Reuters: "Senator Says Lifetime Terror Detentions 'Bad Idea'".
|1.3.05 @ 3:02PM|#
"...plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a
200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go
through a military tribunal for lack of evidence."
Wow, scary stuff. If there is a lack of evidence, what is
government basing these detentions on? A reading from Cleo?
|1.3.05 @ 3:03PM|#
I find nothing in case law, the Bill of Rights, or the Geneva Convention that would make it unlawful to detain Sen. Lugar indefinitely.
CodeMonkeySteve|1.3.05 @ 3:21PM|#
Of course, to cut costs, the duration of a "lifetime detetion" could always be reduced.
|1.3.05 @ 3:26PM|#
As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds
500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for
$25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are
unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of
evidence, defense officials told the Washington Post.
This is just part of a solution. What will the final solution
be?
And here's a question that maybe somebody could help me with: We've
been assured that the federal government will only use its powers
of indefinite detention without trial in special cases. How do you
determine that this is a "special case" if there's a lack of
evidence?
Finally, am I the only one who thinks it's a little Orwellian to
build a prison for people that the government has insufficient
evidence against?
|1.3.05 @ 3:27PM|#
A prison camp trial balloon. Awesome. And Emperor Gentlemans C Augustus hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's going to be a fun 4 years.
|1.3.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Pluralistic democracy requires a loyal opposition; if the Democrats' leadership doesn't want to play the role, someone else, eventually, will.
|1.3.05 @ 3:30PM|#
Ken-
That assumes that we will retain pluralistic democracy. I'm not
trying to sound like gaius marius, but I'm not convinced that the
gang in power intends to play by the rules.
gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 3:40PM|#
A prison camp trial balloon. Awesome. And Emperor Gentlemans
C Augustus hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's going to be a fun 4
years.
precisely. remember the trial balloon they sent up about "delaying"
elections in the event of a reichstag fire? i wonder when we get
the "third-term" trial balloon....
I'm not trying to sound like gaius marius, but I'm not
convinced that the gang in power intends to play by the
rules.
lol -- are you implying that i'm not all there, mr thoreau?
|1.3.05 @ 3:42PM|#
I keep wondering. Having seen what I've seen in my lifetime,
what can shock me?
Now I know.
Is this administration really so utterly dense?
|1.3.05 @ 3:45PM|#
"One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and
Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home
countries, it said.
The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State
Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by
recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a
senior administration official was quoted as saying."
Exactly what "recognized human rights standards" allow for life
imprisonment without trial?
I'm still shocked.
|1.3.05 @ 3:50PM|#
In case of misunderstandings, it was the junta's proposal not
Sen. Lugar's response that shocked me.
Sen. Lugar has impressed me in the past as a man who can be relied
on to take the high road. I wish there were more.
|1.3.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Well, you can see where this is going: "Terrorists, remanded to the authority of their native countries, are better treated and in newer facilities than the country's other prisoners are."
|1.3.05 @ 3:57PM|#
RTFA, Ken. Carl Levin denounced the idea, too.
The entire Democratic Party is against this plan. The only reason,
Mr. Opposition, that Dick Lugar got the headline is because, since
he is a Republican, his denunciation of a Bush atrocity has a nice
man bites dog element.
|1.3.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Isaac Betram,
It should be noted that numerous state laws allow for the virtually
permanent detention of "sex offenders" after they have served their
time if it is found that they are a "continuing danger" to the
community. The SCOTUS has found no problem with these laws. Though
this example isn't perfectly analogous, it isn't a great leap from
permanently incarcerating (or whatever term you want to use for the
detention) someone who has "served" their sentence but who still
constitutes a danger to the "community" and permanently detaining
someone who hasn't been convicted but is considered a danger to the
"community."
I'm of the opinion that if you want to lock up "sex offenders" for
life, or for a flexible period that is measured by some notion of
their continuing dangerousness, then sentence them that way. I'm
also of the opinion that if you are going to sentence someone of
"terrorism," then take them to trial and prove the merits of your
case.
|1.3.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Some victory. The fact that a politician utters the phrase "lifetime terror detentions are a 'bad idea'" and "probably unconstitutional" (although not definately unconstitutional, just "probably"), and catches praise for it, demonstrates just how screwed we all truly are.
|1.3.05 @ 4:05PM|#
What's next, summary executions? Not to engage in hyperbole,
but, taking the government's position literally, I don't see that
they would find a legal bar to doing so. Frankly, the idea
that the executive can operate outside of the Constitution in
military or "national security" matters has never made any sense to
me. I fully grant that there are special situations--combat in the
field, ticking bombs, whatever--that might require special rules,
but the idea that those rules can be secret and unchecked by the
other branches of government is a most dangerous doctrine.
It strikes me that I hear a lot of "this administration" language
when things like this happen, but I fail to see much difference
between the GOP and the Democrats when it comes to expanding
executive power, especially when it comes to national security
issues.
|1.3.05 @ 4:08PM|#
Once in a great while, a budding fascist like Osama or Hitler
makes the point that Western democracies-- because of their
accountability and emphasis on due process-- are inherently
spineless.
Thank god we have Bush to show them how wrong they are.
|1.3.05 @ 4:17PM|#
One proposal would transfer large numbers of Afghan, Saudi
and Yemeni detainees from the U.S. military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home
countries, it said.
The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State
Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by
recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, a
senior administration official was quoted as saying.
The administration official then winked violently at the camera
:)
This is obviously doublespeak. Why would you build a prison in a
country where the officials need to be told recognize human rights
standards? They need a place where they can torture people to
extract sufficient evidence to convict them. If it happens in
another country, they will be able to escape blame.
|1.3.05 @ 4:19PM|#
What scares me is that they're not even trying to make excuses
anymore.
As I said when discussing this topic with a married pal of mine,
"If your wife is cheating on you but still takes the trouble to
make excuses and lie about what she's doing, then there's still a
chance your marriage can be saved. But if she comes right out and
says, 'Bye, honey, I'm going to a bar to pick up some guy and sleep
with him!' that's when you know that your marriage is pretty much
over."
Our government has always done sleazy things, but they used to at
least feel the need to lie about it and hide their sleaziness. But
when they come right out and say, "We want to give lifetime
sentences to guys against whom we have no evidence." . . .well,
THAT'S when I seriously start to fear for the future of the
country.
|1.3.05 @ 4:30PM|#
On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't
seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is
perfectly legit.
It's good to know that libertarians still opose life-long
incarceration without trial.
Murphy's Law says that while I'm typed this somebody else posted
something in support of the administration's policy.
|1.3.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Costa Rica or Belize is starting to look like a more viable option every single day.
|1.3.05 @ 4:38PM|#
Yes, thoreau, the entire blog seems refreshingly free of administration worship today. It's quiet... Too quiet...
|1.3.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Thoreau said:
I'm wondering, Thoreau... Did you intend this to be a reference to
the Holocaust, or was it just an accident?
gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Frankly, the idea that the executive can operate outside of
the Constitution in military or "national security" matters has
never made any sense to me.
the romans had the good sense to limit those powers to six months;
in our case, as there is no public acknowledgement of the
diktator, i see little hope of a term limit.
What scares me is that they're not even trying to make excuses
anymore.
this is frightening, ms jennifer. they -- clearly, imo -- assume
that what they do is right because they do it. i'd drop the h-word,
but why bother?
|1.3.05 @ 4:45PM|#
I'm wondering, Thoreau... Did you intend this to be a
reference to the Holocaust, or was it just an accident?
Not meaning to pick on you kmw, but all references to 'final
solution' aren't necessarily veiled references or puns involving
the Nazis. I'm replying to you because I was on a conference call
with a number of employees the other day and a colleague said "so
is that our final solution?", and was promptly told to reword that
beacuse people may be offended.
I came to his defense because it was so preposterous that something
had to be said.
I have no idea if Thoreau was going for the double entendre or not,
but...
|1.3.05 @ 4:52PM|#
but all references to 'final solution' aren't necessarily
veiled references or puns involving the Nazis
Quick search on Google confirms this. Only 8 out of the top ten
results for "final solution" refer to the Holocaust. One refers to
the title of a book about Sherlock Holmes. The other refers to
insect extermination. (Unclear whether the insects were Jews.)
|1.3.05 @ 4:55PM|#
OMG, you'd think the exterminators' trade org would mail out a pamphlet or something...
|1.3.05 @ 4:55PM|#
gaius:
the romans had the good sense to limit those powers to six
months; in our case, as there is no public acknowledgement of the
diktator, i see little hope of a term limit.
I'm curious, are you referring to Romans before or after the
addition of February and January to the calendar? I assume after,
since the "six months" probably was intended to be 1/2 of a year,
not 60% of the old ten-month Roman calendar? Again, just
curious.
|1.3.05 @ 5:02PM|#
Thoreau,
FWIW, I don�t care either way, I just didn�t see anyone else asking
such an obvious question.
As for answering a question with a question� your political
reflexes are remarkable. Have you considered becoming that normal
LP candidate you�ve been planning to fund?
|1.3.05 @ 5:09PM|#
kmw-
I actually had a serious question in mind, namely "What else are
they planning?" But I was well aware of the double meanings when I
wrote it. I hate to trigger Godwin's Law, but when the gov't starts
planning special prisons for people that they can't find the
evidence to convict, well, maybe some of those scary analogies
aren't so hyperbolic after all.
drf|1.3.05 @ 5:11PM|#
"On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't
seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is
perfectly legit."
well, these people did WRONG. they *deserve* to be punished. so
there. yah yah. {foam foam. spittle spittle}.
how'z that, thoreau? :)
(hey it's a depressing day here in chicagoland. our poor
bears....)
(it was worth a shot - usually some fucktard comes up with that
kind of bullshit excuse to justify their fucking bullying. the
usual note applies: if you're in favor of the torture: FUCK
YOU)
|1.3.05 @ 5:13PM|#
On a positive note, I'm pleasantly surprised that we haven't
seen any posts in this thread (yet) saying that all of this is
perfectly legit.
On a negative note, I haven't seen anyone but the perpetrators
really saying this is all perfectly legit.* Having your libertarian
opinions ignored is par for the course, but having practially
everybody's opinion ignored is genuinely frightening.
*- not that I've been looking too hard.
|1.3.05 @ 5:14PM|#
Help me out joe.
If you can show me a statement by a Democrat sayin' that our
prisoners at Guantanamo should be released eventually, I'd like to
see it. I'm not trying to be a smart alec; I'd really like to see
the statement.
I did a couple of Google searches, and I came up with nothing. I
looked at Pelosi's website, and I don't see anything there either.
There's nothing on Levin's website. Did you see the statement in
the news somewhere? Where?
raymond|1.3.05 @ 5:15PM|#
In these prisons, will there be special libertarian wings, or will you all have to live with democrats?
|1.3.05 @ 5:19PM|#
In these prisons, will there be special libertarian wings,
or will you all have to live with democrats?
If we are forced to bunk with Democrats, I'm calling dibs on
Jennifer Garner!
|1.3.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Gaius Marius, speaking of ancient Rome, maybe we should revive
the office of censor. Sole purpose? Throwing out anyone in
government who violates the Constitution or such ethics that
warrant removal. Sure, plenty of elected officials and bureaucrats
would get tossed for bad reasons, but, frankly, I'd rather see some
innocent politicans get purged than allow the prevailing vision of
unchecked authority continue.
Of course, all of the censors would have to wear togas :)
|1.3.05 @ 5:35PM|#
Of course, all of the censors would have to wear togas
:)
Can Jennifer Garner assume the role of censor?
|1.3.05 @ 5:56PM|#
Sure, why not? The way I figure it, we'd need a group of 'em, anyway. Miss Garner would certainly add some, ahem, appeal to the office.
|1.3.05 @ 6:14PM|#
Ah! There it is...sure enough.
...That's some opposition movement they got goin' there.
|1.3.05 @ 6:59PM|#
Ken's right--what a formidable opposition group we are. No
wonder that FBI babe is trolling for bait on the other
thread.
Seriously though, there probably are government guys who monitor
sites like this one. Are they concerned that we might be a threat
to their power structure, or are they concerned that if we make
them laugh any harder they'll wet their pants?
|1.3.05 @ 7:07PM|#
One wonders why a Noble Roman like marius would spell "dictator"
in the German manner, with that non-latinate "k" replacing the "c".
Could it be a veiled argumentum ad hitlerum?
This is a brutally stupid idea, though. Imagine if some
non-terrorist schmoe who got caught up in the post-battle sweeps in
Iraq and Afghanistan wound up subject to the tender mercies of,
let's say, the Egyptians. I doubt having a shiny, new, U.S.-built
building will change their mindset about how to treat prisoners
much. That some in our executive may be counting on that would be
even more disgusting.
Kevin
|1.3.05 @ 8:02PM|#
kevrob,
I've sniffed out a right winger or two in my time, and I think you
may be reading gaius marius wrong.
|1.3.05 @ 8:12PM|#
Ken-
What are you saying about gaius? He doesn't strike me as all that
right wing or left wing, or libertarian. He seems to fit in the
category of "gloomy."
|1.3.05 @ 8:50PM|#
I was speaking to kevrob's comment directly above mine--I
shoulda quoted it.
gaius marius posted a comment in a thread over the weekend which a
number of people took issue with.
"i submit that it is the weakness of western institutions
undermined by individualism that allowed the fascists to rise, and
has even now allowed a cadre of unvetted, unconservative nouveau
fascists to come to power in the united states."
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/12/decline_of_the.shtml
If by "western institutions" g. marius means churches, then I think
I'm in full agreement. As I posted in that thread, I believe there
are two main threats to civil society: government overstepping its
bounds and a general deterioration of morals. ...and I'm a
full-blooded Libertarian.
The arguments against slavery, in favor of the civil rights
movement and against torture are primarily moral arguments. When
talking to Christians, my first argument against the income tax is
that stealing is wrong.
I believe g. marius mourns the perversion of traditional
Christianity because he thinks it was the driving force behind what
was good about Western culture, and I believe that when he wrote
about "western institutions", he was writing about churches and
other private institutions.
...I could be wrong about that, but even if I am, g. marius doesn't
trip my fascist alert system. He once commended me for arguing that
the Iraq War was wrong because what we won wasn't worth the lives
of the people who had to die and continue to die--that isn't the
commendation of a fascist.
|1.3.05 @ 9:04PM|#
Um, in other words, kevrob is asking whether G. marius is throwing in an uncomplimentary likening of the administration to Hitler, not that GM's a fascist.
|1.3.05 @ 9:41PM|#
There ya go, Eric!
Ken -
As for The Consul's conservatism, when I, in the fabled Decline
Of The West thread, described g.m.'s theories, thusly:
His is an essentially conservative critique.
This was his reply:
exactly -- a more conservative critique than just about any i
see in the american political dialogue.
Comment by: gaius marius at January 2, 2005 06:37 PM
marius' conservatism is of the type that distrusts the
enlightenment, the font of all strains of modernity. I'd bet he
admires Burke over Locke, though his admiration for classical
thinkers is plain from his cognomen. I like to think he's H&R's
own Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. :)
Kevin
|1.3.05 @ 9:42PM|#
The Police - Omegaman
The night came down, jungle sounds were in my ears
City screams are all I�ve heard in twenty years
The razor�s edge of night, it cuts into my sleep
I sit upon the edge now
Shall I make that leap?
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
The sky�s alive with turned on television sets
I walk the streets and seek another vision yet
The echo makes me turn to see that last frontier
The edge of time closes down as I disappear
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
Always talking to myself
Oh!
The time that�s best is when surroundings fade away
The presense of another world comes close to me
It�s time for me to throw away this paper knife
I�m not alone in reaching for a perfect life
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
I�m the omegaman
I�m so tired
Of the omegaman
|1.4.05 @ 12:32AM|#
hmmm...when we captured germans or japanese during world war ii, did we have to provide them with due process and lawyers? did we have to release them after a certain term of detention even if the war hadn't ended? this is a WAR. i can not understand people who want to treat captured al qaeda as if they were picked up for jaywalking or something.
|1.4.05 @ 12:49AM|#
Jimmy-
Congratulations! Yours is the first apparently serious post to
suggest that lifelong detention without trial is OK.
And it took 62 posts to get one. Usually on this forum it takes
less than 10.
|1.4.05 @ 1:07AM|#
jimmy,
when we captured germans or japanese during world war ii, did
we have to provide them with due process and lawyers?
If we were going to imprison (de facto or de jure) or execute them
yes; note that the eight sabotuers that were caught in 1942 (some
of whom were eventually executed) all had trials, full due process,
etc., got to bring habeas challenges all the way to the SCOTUS. A
permanent detention - as opposed to being in a POW camp for the
duration of the war - would de facto constitute imprisonment based
on a sentence handed out by the executive, thus impinging on the
Constutional role of the judiciary whatever form the judiciary
takes in the particular instance. Some of us still believe in
seperation of powers and limited government.
did we have to release them after a certain term of detention
even if the war hadn't ended?
No. But then again, the U.S. isn't discussing the release of
individuals after the end of the "war" (and note that to Donald
Rumsfeld that means the end of terror as a instrument that can be
used globally - why the fuck does that sound like the endless war
described in Orwell's masterpiece 1984?); they are
discussing permanent detention war or not. That strikes me as
beyond the normal bounds of the rules of war, international law (be
it by treaty or not), against the philosophical doctrines which
undergird our notions of war in the West, etc.
i can not understand people who want to treat captured al qaeda
as if they were picked up for jaywalking or something.
We don't of course; but thanks for that bit of moronic hyperbole
you twit. Indeed, its apparent any trial that these people might
face would certainly carry a penalty much higher than a fine for
jaywalking and would be pursued much more vigorously than an effort
to convict for jaywalking.
|1.4.05 @ 1:11AM|#
jimmy,
BTW, you are going to stupidly argue that the President has some
"indepenent" power to pursue such permanent detentions on his own I
would ask from whence that independent power derives? The only
independent war making power the President is the "repel attack"
power, which is neccasarily short in time and substance; when the
Congress and the Courts are properly functioning and able to act it
seems to me that the "repel attack" becomes little more than the
first efforts to repel an attack and that is all.
See the Madison's notes on the debates during the Constitutional
Convention for a discussion of this very limited "repel attack"
power.
|1.4.05 @ 6:39AM|#
Jimmy-
The government itself has admitted that it has no evidence against
these people. You seriously have no problem with the government
saying, "Let me lock people up forever, even though we have no
evidence to charge them with a crime?"
I assume your physical appearance is such that you don't "look"
Arab, and thus you assume you're safe. But ask yourself--if the
government IS in fact given this power, what in HELL'S name makes
you think they'll stop with guys who have their Sabbath on Friday,
or have the syllable "al-" in their names?
gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 9:48AM|#
I assume after, since the "six months" probably was intended
to be 1/2 of a year, not 60% of the old ten-month Roman calendar?
Again, just curious.
mr db, the office of diktator was very old, so i suspect the old
calendar.
gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 9:53AM|#
Gaius Marius, speaking of ancient Rome, maybe we should
revive the office of censor. Sole purpose? Throwing out anyone in
government who violates the Constitution or such ethics that
warrant removal.
but who among heroic washingtonians would you trust in that
office?
it should be noted that the successful implementations of the
office were with men like cincinnatus, in a much earlier rome --
not men like sulla and caesar. and all we now have is men like
sulla and caesar -- the moral (dys)development of our society has
gone well beyond the lockean moderation and rigid morality that
once made such regency an approachable idea, imo.
gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 10:16AM|#
that isn't the commendation of a fascist
thank you, mr schultz. i am anything but.
marius' conservatism is of the type that distrusts the
enlightenment, the font of all strains of modernity. I'd bet he
admires Burke over Locke, though his admiration for classical
thinkers is plain from his cognomen.
mr kevrob, i wouldn't go quite that far. i admire burke *and* locke
-- and the entire english empirical tradition -- for its moderation
and sensibility. burke's criticisms of the french revolution are
golden, as is locke's (and montesquieu's) moderation in
articulating the principles of liberty.
but locke's liberal (in the classic sense) arguments are worthless
-- worthless -- without the proper moral framework that protects
society from unethical practicioners of selfishness. locke
understand this -- and further understands the essential need of
divided and limited power, as the republican romans did.
what i bemoan is that the ethical framework for the beneficial
practice of locke's ideas is vanished as a result of the
development of the public mind since rousseau. hero-cults and
promethean struggles are antithetical to constructive
capitalism.
fwiw, i took marius' name because his ethic is our current one --
it appeals to me only ironically.
|1.4.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Gaius Marius, I can't argue that there are a lot of people in
politics that I would trust with removal power. Still, I think the
whole concept of checks and balances has always assumed that no one
in authority can be trusted. We were supposed to have a limited
government to ensure that there wasn't all that much power to
abuse, but that isn't where we are today.
Anyway, we could limit the power of the censors by having some sort
of override by two or more of the other branches and by allowing
some of their functions to be defined by Congress. Maybe the
Supreme Court could have appointment power? One problem I'm not
sure how to handle would be the partisan makeup of a panel of
censors--how do we keep removal from being solely a matter of
partisan politics? Maybe we should sequester the young and train
them to be philosopher kin--I mean, censors.
I'd be good as a censor, because I'd kick half of the bozos in DC
out day one.
|1.4.05 @ 9:39PM|#
thoreau, I almost mentioned Miss Garner, but I thought my date tonight would have been upset if I had "lusted in my heart for another woman". What a babe.
|1.5.05 @ 7:38AM|#
PL, this is your month. A 2-hour Alias premeire and the
release of Elektra. Just don't gibber too much about it to
your sweetie.
JG is cute, if a tad on the skinny side. (I should be so
picky!)
Kevin
|1.5.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Jennifer:
"I assume your physical appearance is such that you don't "look"
Arab, and thus you assume you're safe. But ask yourself--if the
government IS in fact given this power, what in HELL'S name makes
you think they'll stop with guys who have their Sabbath on Friday,
or have the syllable "al-" in their names?"
While I admire your principles, why are you talking to this person
as though he was a two year old- "You should only be concerned
about them because it's in your self-interest." Maybe that's the
Randian view, but the way I see it, we should be concerned about
unjust detentions because they're... UNJUST, not merely because we
could become victims of them.
It would seem to me that the moral thing to do would be to stand up
to any injustice, regardless of its potential ramifications (or
lack thereof) to oneself.
|1.5.05 @ 12:34PM|#
andy-
Principled opposition to injustice may work for some libertarians,
but on this forum a lot of people couldn't care less what happens
to Arabs whom the government claims are terrorists.
Sad but true.
|1.5.05 @ 2:35PM|#
jennifer: i don't recall hearing that the govt has "no evidence"
against the people captured by the military in afghanistan, some of
whom have publicly stated to reporters that they would go right
back to terror against americans if released. don't know WHERE you
got that one. but we're not talking about the govt randomly picking
up arab-looking people on the streets of american cities, to which
the constitution clearly applies. we're talking about military
combatants from a group that declared war on us, captured in a
foreign country. i wish they would be treated as pow's and given
full geneva protections, but that's not the issue i raised. the
issue i raised was basically, where does the constitution grant due
process rights to military enemies captured in war? it
DOESN'T.
gary: saboteurs captured in world war ii may have been given due
process rights, but i'm not convinced they had to be. it just seems
to me due process does apply to criminal acts committed by aliens
on us soil, but not to acts of war. and people who want to treat
9/11 as just one big bad crime are fools...that's the reason for
the jaywalking comment.
i'm not up on my federalist papers, i admit, so i can't comment
about madison's theory of "repel attack" power. i take it then,
that even going into afghanistan to go after al qaeda violates this
theory? then again, madison came perilously close to losing the
whole damn country in the war of 1812, in which case we wouldn't
even be here discussing this. self-preservation comes first.
i'm not arguing in favor of lifetime detention even in the absence
of war. but al qaeda declared war on us; there needs to be a clear
defeat of the enemy before the detainees can be released.
|1.5.05 @ 3:23PM|#
jimmy, in 1812, we declared war on them. The President and
Congress should have expected Great Britain to raid our coast and
even invade our shores. As much as sticking up for our merchant
sailors' rights may have been a good thing, picking a fight with
the greatest military and naval power on the planet, especially
when little or no preparation had been made to carry out a threat
of war, was lunacy. Remember, we launched an invasion of British
North America (not yet the Dominion of Canada) that not only failed
to be the land grab the War Hawks dreamed of, but wound up with the
UK counter-attacking into upstate New York.
Making it all the more absurd, had a telegraph and undersea cable
been available back then, news that London had rescinded the orders
to violate the sovereignty of U.S. flagged ships would have reached
Washington City before war was declared. With better
communications, the entire war could have been avoided.
Kevin, in history-nerd mode
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245