Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:01:35AM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every > country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), meddling in Middle Yes, we know that. Bin Laden's three points (from pre-911 interviews) were U.S. out of Arabia, end of military aid to Israel, and end of military sequestration of Iraq. Our continued pursuit of those goals gives bin Laden excellent PR ammo against the West, especially the U.S. But it is folly to think that those three items are the radical Islamic fundamentalists only "gripe" with the U.S. MTV, VH1, McDonalds, Disney, and the Internet -- yep, those are all destablizing influence. They know it, and hate it, and might even bomb us for it. Don't fall for the PR. -Declan
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Gore would have appointed folks to federal agencies who were considerably more regulatory, not even thought about a serious tax cut, and would have embraced more and more federal regulations. Bush is marginally better on that score. As for civil liberties, we wouldn't have had Poindexter but we could have had someone like him overseeing the same program -- DARPA is hardly a partisan beast. It's true we might have had someone less eager about war, but then again Sept. 11 gave (in the minds of DC types) any president carte blanche, and we haven't gone to war yet. (Perhaps naively, I'm hoping the administration may back down at the last moment.) Probably the biggest difference is the conservative activist community, in DC, online and in talk radio -- they've been unfortunately silent when it comes to complaining about unconstitutional actions from a Republican administration. Not uniformly silent, of course, but still too quiet. -Declan On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:47:24AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either, > but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy > or to civil liberties, probably much less, and would have been > less gung-ho about getting us into a war and would have found > some kind of pork that's more productive than military hardware > to spend our tax money on.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
-- On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe > with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with > trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that > Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do with US > troops stationed in nearly every country in the world > (specifically, Saudi Arabia), That was one indictment of many. Another indictment was the crusades. Bin Laden seemed most strongly upset about the reconquest of of what we call Spain, but which muslims call by another name. In the most recent communique (which may not be Osama Bin Laden but his successor pretending to be him) he gave a Leninist rant that the arabs are poor because the rich countries are rich, espousing the Marxist argument that simply being a citizen of a wealthy country is a crime deserving of death. This makes me suspect that the original Bin Laden is now a grease smear on some Afghan rocks, since the original Bin Laden was a Heideggerean, and would spit on any Marxist unless that Marxist was dying of thirst in the desert. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sV5AglG+l7RX7GtAdr2sqFU4waW0+YXAMUKk12Nm 4LvMyqqmmLejQafyYLGOpTioRrPohNzS4GFkFqk6Y
Re: CDR: Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote: > > John Kelsey wrote: > > > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of > > contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for > > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive > > regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to > > countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not > > hate us, but *someone* would. > > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. Right. THIS group of terrorists has made ITS beef plain. But one thing you learn about Terror with a capital T, which I've been studying since 1974, is that it has its own ideology completely separate from and independent of the nominal Cause. That is, a "Muslim" terrorist has more in common with a "Marxist" terrorist than with a rank-and-file Muslim, which explains the fact that diverse terrorist groups with seemingly irreconcilable ideological differences readily collaborate when it is to mutual advantage. By the same token, schisms in terrorist groups invariably occur based on disagreements over tactics and strategy - NOT ideology (though ideological justification is often found and proclaimed post facto). Appeasement definitely will not bring an end to terror - quite the opposite, in fact. So to the extent that Western governments pursue genuine anti-terrorist measures, they should be supported. When they implement the terrorists' own agenda by abridging the freedom of their own citizens, they must be opposed. Marc de Piolenc
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:18:52PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be > that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps > there are thousands who are almost equally angry, Thousands? Gimme a break -- try "millions", eh? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
Tyler Durden wrote: > John Keley wrote... > > "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would." > > Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. "Fucked with". "Trained up and fucked over". Whatever. > BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war > with Iraq is just a way to show more smart missle "advertisements" to > the petty dictators we peddle our stuff to. Can't they just drop leaflets instead? It'd be so much nicer.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
John Keley wrote... "There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records." Hummm...kind of an odd argument, don't you think? Should it still be called "terrorism" if there exist those that oppose a world-wide oppressive and corrupt regime that in turn props up any petty dictator that smells as rotten as we are? "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would." Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. In other words, its one thing to piss off a small number of people, but if you keep stomping around the globe screwing people over and spouting tired rhetoric, you're bound to attract the attention of someone with enough money, networks, determination and religious zealotry who makes it their mission in life to take you out. Perhaps its no big coincidence that OBL is Saudi and that we've supported and propped up the repressive Saudi regime for years. (He's also stated many times that one of his goals is to topple the corrupt Saudi regime and to remove American control.) It's funny...but I think I just understood what "infidel" means... "Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with, and if someone could improve their fortunes by several billion dollars a year by finding a few gullable guys to strap dynamite to themselves and blow up shopping malls and such, I'm sure they'd do just that." Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps there are thousands who are almost equally angry, and every time the Israelis use one of our whiz-bangs to kill their kids, we add a few more to the roster of those willing to strap dynamite to themselves. BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war with Iraq is just a way to show more smart missle "advertisements" to the petty dictators we peddle our stuff to. -TD _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
John Kelsey wrote: No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), meddling in Middle Eastern conflicts (the never-ending Israeli-Arab feud), and the steady stream of Arab corpses that Clinton and the Bushes have produced over the last ten years or so (thousands of Afghani civilians killed by US bombs in the last year or so; the bombing of Iraq that has stretch uninterrupted from the beginning of the Persian Gulf War to the present day). Neutrality and noninterventionism work spectacularly well as a foreign policy. Just take a look at Switzerland: seven centuries of peace and freedom, with the exception of a few years during the Napoleanic era, and never a problem with terrorists. Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with How about "Friendship and free trade with all, entangling alliances with none," to quote Thomas Jefferson? A trade policy that doesn't choose favorites avoids any problem of others wishing to influence U.S. trade policy.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
At 09:38 AM 1/16/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: ... [Question of whether we could have avoided 9/11 and such things by not having an activist foreign policy] >Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for >*not* helping them. Not if the USG had no policy towards anyone. One more time, George, for No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. And once we start allowing our foreign policy to be changed in response to terrorism, we're truly f*cked, since a lot of people would like to exert control over how the world's most powerful military is used, whom we trade with, etc. Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with, and if someone could improve their fortunes by several billion dollars a year by finding a few gullable guys to strap dynamite to themselves and blow up shopping malls and such, I'm sure they'd do just that. I agree we'd be better off with a much less interventionist foreign policy, few well-chosen allies (e.g., we're not going to be cool with people invading Canada), and free trade with almost everyone (I'd like to see us not trade with countries with really bad human rights records, though that's not exactly the direction we're heading in now). ... --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: >On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model >> for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, >> it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked >> the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances >> about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. >> They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs >> stationed in the Holy Land. > >Bullshit. > >First off, the same groups would have been torqued off that we were >guilty of "cultural imperalism" by allowing (or assisting) american >companies to push product over there. They would simply have had a social-boycott or a government-imposed ban. Both are used in the US. (Only the government-imposed one uses force, but its generally invisible bureaucratic violence by Customs workers at borders.) >Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for >*not* helping them. Not if the USG had no policy towards anyone. One more time, George, for Petro: Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. -George Washington I guess RTFF: RTF Fatwa
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 10:40 PM 1/13/03 -0800, Tim May wrote: On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote: ... Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a decision on the basis of politics instead of a careful reading of the constitution. Everything the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election was fully justified. The Dems lost, then tried to change the rules. That's not the way it looked to me. My impression was that both sides were willing to do anything that wouldn't actually get them thrown in jail to sway the outcome of the election, but that Bush had been dealt a better hand. The Florida court decision (with a big Democratic majority) went for the Democrats, the SC decision (with a Republican majority) went for the Republicans. Essentially everyone involved made decisions that were in the interests of their party winning the presidency. But seeing the SC make a highly-political decision that upset so many Democrats was entertaining, given the usual pattern of Conservatives complaining about activist, politicized courts, while Liberals explain that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" in light of current events. (Note that with a more Conservative court, we can expect this pattern to reverse, just as Conservatives were complaining about too much Presidential power during the Clinton administration, but in favor of greater Presidential power in the Reagan and Bush years.) ... I'm not happy with Bush, to repeat this mantra that Gore/Lieberman actually won is knavish at best. That's not what I said at all. (And for what it's worth, I don't think Gore would be doing very much differently right now. It's not like Bush is sitting around, coming up with proposals for added surveilance and security on his own--these are recommendations from various parts of the bureaucracy, and those recommendations carry a lot of weight because nobody wants to be seen to have ignored the next set of warnings.) --Tim May --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:47:24AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either, > but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy The majority of the damage was done before the election, then again on 9/11/2002. Bush has done a moderate job of moderating the economic damage, but that's about all a president *can* do. > or to civil liberties, probably much less, and would have been Ruby Ridge, Waco? Everything that was in the Patriot Act was shit that the feds had been lobbying for for 10 years. Gore would have been just as eager to sign that bill as Bush was. Hell, there was only what, *1* no vote against it? > less gung-ho about getting us into a war and would have found Who bombed the Chinese embassy? An aspirin factory? Sorry Mr. Stewart, normally I've got a lot of respect for what you say, but history shows us that Democratic presidents generally have much worse war records than Republican ones, and Shrub is doing quite well on the Use Of Force scale. Yes, he's got some (lots) of issues on the Constitution scale. On the Speaking Well scale, and the Friend of Freedom scale. But Bore and Lierman would have been far, far worse. > some kind of pork that's more productive than military hardware > to spend our tax money on. The problem is that Congress keeps passing bills saying "the pentagon will get this", and that pentagon keeps saying "we don't need that much of it, and we really don't want it anyway". Somehow we've managed to get to the point where we've got a bunch of people in the DoD who are really much more interested in breaking things and killing people than in building a big military industrial complex. Wierd but true. -- The difference between math and physics is the difference| Quit smoking: between masturbation and sex.| 268d, 13h ago --Paul Tomblin | petro@ | bounty.org
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model > for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, > it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked > the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances > about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. > They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs > stationed in the Holy Land. Bullshit. First off, the same groups would have been torqued off that we were guilty of "cultural imperalism" by allowing (or assisting) american companies to push product over there. Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for *not* helping them. This was one of those catch-22s. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal | Quit smoking: with are half-wits."--Chris Klein| 268d, 13h ago | petro@ | bounty.org
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, [Bill Stewart] wrote: If you've got your brother counting the votes, and you can prevent anybody else from counting them, then you don't need to cancel elections. On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote: Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a decision on the basis of politics instead of a careful reading of the constitution. At 10:40 PM 01/13/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: Everything the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election was fully justified. The Dems lost, then tried to change the rules. Were it up to me, I would have shot Al Gore and Joe Lieberman on the spot. You and Bill need your brains washed out with soap. I'm not happy with Bush, to repeat this mantra that Gore/Lieberman actually won is knavish at best. I'm not sure who won, but I know who tried to make sure that nobody else got to count the votes; it was pure sleaze, and he got away with it, though I'll grant you that the incompetence of the Democrats at enforcing the rules about getting the votes recounted when they're close enough that Florida law permits it certainly contributed to that. Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either, but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy or to civil liberties, probably much less, and would have been less gung-ho about getting us into a war and would have found some kind of pork that's more productive than military hardware to spend our tax money on.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 09:23 PM, John Kelsey wrote: At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, you wrote: If you've got your brother counting the votes, and you can prevent anybody else from counting them, then you don't need to cancel elections. Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a decision on the basis of politics instead of a careful reading of the constitution. Everything the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election was fully justified. The Dems lost, then tried to change the rules. Were it up to me, I would have shot Al Gore and Joe Lieberman on the spot. You and Bill need your brains washed out with soap. I'm not happy with Bush, to repeat this mantra that Gore/Lieberman actually won is knavish at best. --Tim May
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 10:44 AM 1/13/03 -0800, you wrote: If you've got your brother counting the votes, and you can prevent anybody else from counting them, then you don't need to cancel elections. Personally, I was shocked, *shocked*, to see the supreme court make a decision on the basis of politics instead of a careful reading of the constitution. To get back to the broader point of the previous poster, I'm honestly a lot less creeped out by the idea that Bush has the power to order people assassinated or disappeared (though obviously that's a really bad thing) than with the idea that, sooner or later, that power is going to get spread out to a whole bunch of people, some of whom will be getting their performance evaluated based on how many suspected terrorists they've had killed or disappeared. "Gee, Fred, you're showing up to work on time, you're filling your paperwork out properly, but I'm afraid you're just not being effective enough at rooting out Al Qaida operatives. I'm sure you can do better, though--just find me five operatives in the next week" --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 09:40 PM 01/09/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: If Bush can decide alone whether or not we are at war, and if Bush can decide alone with whom we are at war, and if Bush can decide alone what the boundaries of the war zone are, and if Bush can decide alone what behavior makes one an enemy combatant, then we have one person, a totalitarian dictator, who can disappear you, imprison you, and kill you, at will, with no right of review by a court for any of it. That totalitarian dictator is Bush. Do his war powers extend to cancelling elections? Why not? Can't judges disappear as well as anyone? If you've got your brother counting the votes, and you can prevent anybody else from counting them, then you don't need to cancel elections.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Here's a December ruling favorable to the gvt in the Padilla case: http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/04/padilla.ruling/index.html Note this has not been affirmed by an appeals court (yet). -Declan On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:25:42PM -0600, Wes Hellman wrote: > Oh, it seems that I've missed the fact that the situation I was talking > about seems to be playing itself out nicely with that dirty bomb guy. > Sure, the court didn't say that this applied to his case, but they > didn't say it *didn't* apply, either. They've left it wide open. I > suspect it won't be long before a similar ruling is made for him.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:11:26PM -0600, Wes Hellman wrote: > Since terrorists are the enemy, and they (obviously) operate within our > borders to do harm, it's not a terrible stretch to think that it won't > be long before a US citizen who's actually here in the states could be > designated an "enemy combatant". And obviously, they needn't have Terrorists are *an* enemy of freedom. There is such as case: Padilla v. Bush. Much more important (based on the facts) than the one we're discussing here. -Declan
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:03:03PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon. > > This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the > Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their > crimes against the Constitution. Here's the text of the ruling, FYI: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf -Declan
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:35:36 -0800, you wrote: > > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the > time he was fighting the US. > > The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses > the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. Where in the Constitution do we learn that "being in a foreign country for years" separates a United States Citizen from the rights provided by the Constitution? Exactly what period of years triggers this denial of Constitutional rights? Please provide a map of the boundaries of the "war zone" for Mr. Bush's "War on Terror". If the President may deny habeas corpus in the absence of a declared war, and if the geography of a war zone is fluid and undefined by the government, and if the time period of absence from the US and relationship to time of "capture" is undefined, please show how denial of habeas corpus cannot be applied to every US Citizen who has ever been abroad, upon declaration of "enemy combatant" status by the United States Military, solely, under this ruling. Last, if well established bedrock rights written into the highest law of the land like habeas corpus are denied by a government, please describe the moral authority underwhich that government may claim a right to be obeyed. Describing the power to capture, torture, imprison and kill, and the willingness to do so is not considered a "moral authority" in this question. I guess Citizens should "wait on events, while dangers gather"? Citizens should forgo any "preemption of those who would attack freedom"?
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
At 10:11 AM 01/09/2003 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and vice-versa of course). Private citizens are not bound by the Constitution either of course (it binds only the governments). The Feds keep asserting that the Constitution doesn't apply to them outside the US. A militia wouldn't have been in Afghanistan, or at least wouldn't have been attacking the Taliban government over there, though they (or hired mercs) might have gone after Al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs stationed in the Holy Land. The Padilla case will be more important than the Hamdi case because he was arrested in Chicago rather than Afghanistan. Under the traditional laws of war, Padilla (if he is an enemy soldier) could have been executed as a spy since he entered the country in civilian clothes rather than in uniform. But Padilla's a citizen, so entering the country in civilian clothes doesn't make him a spy, though spying might make him one. All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their uniforms so they can "get off on a technicality" if captured. I wonder what an Al-Quida uniform looks like? I believe their fatigues uniform consists of pants and a shirt in arbitrary colors and low cost :-) Their dress uniforms are the turban and long shirt deal, but that's not for foreign expedition use.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants (shredding the Constitution)
At 10:11 AM 1/9/03 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: >All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their >uniforms so they can "get off on a technicality" if captured. I wonder >what an Al-Quida uniform looks like? Yeah, the British had the same problem with the north-american colonial terrorists of the 1700's. The stronger always wants to weaker to play by the stronger's rules. --- Additional case studies are needed, however, to determine which traits of chemical and biological terrorists might help identify them because charisma, paranoia, and grandiosity are alo found to varying degreees among, for example, leaders of political parties, large corporations, and academic depts. --John T Finn, _Science_ v 289 1 sept 2000
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
"Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether this man's service in a foreign army is naughty enough to lose him his constitutional rights." First of all, I don't even think that "depriving someone of their constitutional rights" is the major issue in this case. On a very simplistic level (apparently the only level that Tim May seems to think Tyler Durden operates on), the US "trial by a jury of your peers" and "innocent until proven guilty" are not supposed to be Rome-like luxuries of being a citizen. They in theory represent a system that protects the accused from basically being the target of whatever political interests may be in charge. By bypassing this system, isn't there a subtext here that on some level says "He's guilty if we say he's guilty"? In other words, they apparently don't trust that our legal system works the way they (Bush and the military) want it to. In this sense, our legal system is now caricatured as being essentially a luxury of US citzenship, as opposed to reflecting some basic human right. Yes of course I know that there are probably practicalities involved: "If we don't try him as an enemy combatant then he might go free and kill more US soldiers". But again, this statement assumes complete and infallible knowledge on the part of the military concerning this man, and then the right to bypass the rights of American citizens to determine what to do with him. It's a bad sign. -TD If *that* decision-making process has weaker legal protection than a normal criminal trial would have had, the effect is that the legal protection of the whole system is reduced. If the process of removing someone's constitutional rights is not itself subject to those rights, then those rights are hollow and can be removed at will. Ken Brown _ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: > Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon. > > This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the > Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their > crimes against the Constitution. It's a good thing he was captured by the Feds instead of a militia or a Private Defense Force of some sort. Note that such forces are not required to accept surrenders and can simply kill enemy forces (and vice-versa of course). Private citizens are not bound by the Constitution either of course (it binds only the governments). The Padilla case will be more important than the Hamdi case because he was arrested in Chicago rather than Afghanistan. Under the traditional laws of war, Padilla (if he is an enemy soldier) could have been executed as a spy since he entered the country in civilian clothes rather than in uniform. All Al-Quida combatants in the US should definitely wear their uniforms so they can "get off on a technicality" if captured. I wonder what an Al-Quida uniform looks like? DCF
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Michael Cardenas wrote: > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the > time he was fighting the US. Hey, I'm not a USAan and I don't even live there. But I think I know your Constitution well enough to know that I never read the bit about how long you have to live in a foreign country to lose your rights. The argument is just the same as the one we're always using about crypto or security. The system is as strong as it's weakest link. If there are 2 doors to your house you need to lock them both. Someone, somewhere, has to decide whether this man's service in a foreign army is naughty enough to lose him his constitutional rights. If *that* decision-making process has weaker legal protection than a normal criminal trial would have had, the effect is that the legal protection of the whole system is reduced. If the process of removing someone's constitutional rights is not itself subject to those rights, then those rights are hollow and can be removed at will. Ken Brown
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Oh, it seems that I've missed the fact that the situation I was talking about seems to be playing itself out nicely with that dirty bomb guy. Sure, the court didn't say that this applied to his case, but they didn't say it *didn't* apply, either. They've left it wide open. I suspect it won't be long before a similar ruling is made for him.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Well, I don't know that it's as bad as he was making it out to be, but I wouldn't say that it's as cheery as you seem to think it is, either. While that case in particular seems very obvious, it sets a dangerous precedent. Also note the wording: "A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled President Bush has the authority to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and detain them in military custody if they are deemed a threat to national security." Since terrorists are the enemy, and they (obviously) operate within our borders to do harm, it's not a terrible stretch to think that it won't be long before a US citizen who's actually here in the states could be designated an "enemy combatant". And obviously, they needn't have actually committed a terrorist act--we want to prevent such things, right? So they would be suspected of conspiracy to do something terroristic. The end result being that US citizens who have committed no actual terrorist acts could be deemed enemy combatants and thus not allowed to have all the nice benefits of citizens, such as trials and what have you. And then it's just a matter of pissing the right (wrong?) people off, and away you go, never to be heard from again... On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 22:35, Michael Cardenas wrote: > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at the > time he was fighting the US. > > The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses > the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time.
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 23:35, Michael Cardenas wrote: > I think you're overreacting a bit. The actual case involves someone > who was in a foriegn country for years, and was in the war zone at > the time he was fighting the US. > > The ruling says that he was "squarely in teh war zone" and discusses > the issue that he hda been out of the US for a long time. And the court specifically said its ruling did not cover Jose P. Taliban, the (alleged) would-be dirty bomber. But I strongly disagree with some of the dicta in the ruling: if there is any time that the courts need to let the administration have its way, it's during war time. (I paraphrased that.) My view is, if there's any time the courts need to keep a closer eye on the administration, it's during a popular war. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged. --Michael Shirley
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 04:08 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/ Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Do it soon. This is one of the rulings which completes the shredding of the Constitution. Every member of that Court should be killed for their crimes against the Constitution. "RICHMOND, Virginia (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Wednesday ruled President Bush has the authority to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" and detain them in military custody if they are deemed a threat to national security." President Nixon didn't like Daniel Ellsberg publishing the Pentagon Papers? Declare him an enemy combatant, ship him off to a concentration camp in Gitmo, and deny him access to attorneys. And so on, for any form of dissent. Fuck the U.S. Fuck it dead. Actually, it died a long time ago. So fuck its corpse. --Tim May
