----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:08 AM Subject: Re: Technique > > Let's go over them again, starting with torture which, besides being > against numerous state, local and federal laws is prohibited by the eighth > amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Torture is an assault on the > very fabric of who we are. Anyone who understands and respects this > country and the constitution should understand that.
The United States Constituion provides protection for those people living within the United States and for United States citizens. It has not be understood to regulate the actions of the United States government overseas against non US citizens. The one possible exception to this is the provision that treaties signed by the US are considered laws of the land. I cannot recall a historical example of this provision being used to declare the actions of the US government against people who are not US citizens outside of the boundaries of the US unconstitutional. Second, it appears that you are referring to the US constituion as a moral document. While I agree that the founders had a sense of ethics when they wrote the Constituion (the faith statements in the Declaration of Independance are a good example of this), it is inherently a political document. In it's original form, slavery was treated as quite acceptable. The Bill of Rights did not prohibit the various states from passing laws limiting free speach. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Constitution prohibited the states from impinging on the freedom of speach. We can look to our history to see that the Constituion has not been interpreted in the manner you seem to be suggesting. During WWII, the US firebombed many cities, including Dresden and Tokyo. Dresden stands out, because it had no military significance. We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in this manner. Many of them were young children, who were obviously innocent of any wrongdoing. Yet, this action was and is seen as Constitutional. There are many immoral actions that can be taken by the US government that are Constitutional. >You say Nixon was a > criminal because of a burglary, what do you call someone that proscribes > torture? Almost every time, wrong. I do not see torture justified in the present war on terrorism. I must admit, though, that I agree with Senator McCain on the possibility of defining a case where torture is acceptable. We could think of "ticking bomb" scenarios where torture might be the least bad option. For example, consider the case where terrorists have planted an A-bomb in some container that is now in some US port, and we have captured one of their agents who has a very good chance of knowing where. I'm not sure that the wrongness of torture outweighs the wrongness of not doing everything possible to stop so many deaths. Now, you may argue that this "ticking bomb" scenario has been used as an excuse many times where it is not valid. I'd agree. Not having a bright line is wrong. Knowing that there might be rare circumstances in which, in hindsight, we accept that crossing that bright line may have been the least bad thing to do is not as clearly wrong. > Continue with the writ of Habeas Corpus, the right to be brought before a > court or a judge; a right first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly seven > hundred years ago and included in Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: "The > privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when > in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." This has never been applied to non-citizens who are captured during a war. "If we let them go, they are likely to return to the fight against us" has always been an accepted reason for keeping prisoners....and it is the justification used by Bush now. Now, "the war on terror" has far less clear boundaries than any other conflict I can think of. But, AFAIK, the US Constituion has never been interpreted to grant the right to a writ of habeas corpus to non-citizens captured during a conflict. Now, citizens captured during a conflict are another story. It is my opinion that we cannot simply declare them enemy combattants. But, the Supreme Court has had every chance to jump in on this, and they haven't. Until they do, Bush's actions are no more than marginal. Even after this case is decided against Bush, as I think it ultimately will be, his action against one citizen (AFAIK it's only 1, but I will stand correction), pales in comparison to an executive order signed by FDR interning 120k citizens becasue of their ethnic origin. > Hand in hand with HC we have the egregious violation of the sixth > amendment: "..the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury > of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, > which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be > informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with > the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining > witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his > defense." Again, AFAIK, it has never been understood to apply to foreigners captured and held outside of the US. > Where in the world does the constitution say we can set up a concentration > camp on foreign soil and hold prisoners there indefinitely, torturing them > and depriving them of their rights? We're not only violating our own laws > and international law, but the laws of every civilized nation on the > earth. > > Moving on we have the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be > secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable > searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, > but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and > particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or > things to be seized." Both the wiretapping by the NSA and some > provisions of the patriot act violate this amendment. It depends on what is considered reasonable. BTW, one thing I didn't know until recently, a warrentless search is not inherrently illegal. Without a warrent, the searchers are not protected against lawsuits, but that does not make the search inherently illegal. > And these aren't actions by a president to protect > himself from prosecution like the Nixon case you presented, they are > attempts to expand the power of the presidency and diminish the rights of > the people. > Name me a president that has violated such a wide array of constitutional > rights. The only one that even comes close is FDR and his confinement of > Japanese Americans in concentration camps, the most egregious and reviled > violation of constitutional principal of the last century. Lincoln > suspended HC, but I don't remember hearing that he tortured anyone or > spied on them while they were at the library. Truman tried to stop a > strike, does that justify holding people in solitary confinement > indefinitely? > > Finally, lets discuss the "war". The "War on Terrorism". When does it > end? For that matter, when did it start? Were we not combating terrorism > before 911? Are we going to compromise peoples rights for as long as this > so called war, which could conceivably go on forever, lasts? We're not > at war! Worse than that our so called war on terrorism is actually > empowering the terrorists. I think it is fair to say that there is a world wide insurrection against the present order. > Yes, 911 was a horrific act worthy of a terrible retribution. But lets > remember that the attack could have been prevented simply by heightening > airport security or by a more vigilant intelligence system. In hindsight, box cutters should have been prohibited. In hindsight, the safety of the passangers should not have been our first concern, keeping terrorists from being in control of the planes should have been. But, I think that it is unreasonable to think that restricting spying and our intelligence gathering does not limit the ability of the CIA, FBI, etc. to root out terrorists. In hindsight, we are able to put the pieces together to show that we did have the information needed to stop 9-11. But, it is always much easier to see the clues highlighted afterwards. Listening/searching for messages between suspected AQ sites overseas and the US should help contain AQ. Whether Bush was within his authority when he did that, and whether the benefit to the United States outweights the harm done to the Uniteds States by his actions is certainly debatable. But, I think he is at least wrong, here. Further, the extent of his spying that we know of so far is significantly less than what occured during the 50's and '60s. Protest groups were infiltrated with government agents. People like MLK were wiretapped. There was no evidence at all that these groups/people were planning anything at all like 9-11. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that AQ would be very intereasted in repeating or topping the destruction of that day. Finally, I'm not trying to justify Bush's actions. But, I see his response as a far lesser infringement on liberty than seen during the Cold War. The spying is more limited, and it appears to be directed at an organization which has proven it's intent and ability to significantly harm the US. Given what happened, I'm amazed at how moderate the response was. And, I see that the Congress is already reasserting its prerogatives, and the excesses found in Bush's actions should be moderated. Given this, I'd argue that the protection of liberty during a period of perceived peril is actually superior to what we've seen before in our history. It's better than during the Cold/Nam war. It's better than WWII. Its better than WWI. Before that, I'd have to do research, I guess, but....at the very least, the treatment of Native Americans and blacks did not reflect respect of their rights before WWI. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
