RIP, Bill of Rights, RIP

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of 120,000 Japanese civilians, 2/3 of whom were US citizens, in military camps across the western half of the country. Effectively stripping Japanese Americans of virtually all constitutional protections (including rights to property, trial by jury and habeas corpus), 9066 is now widely decried as one of the darkest moments in US history. In 1988, Congress passed Public Law 100-383, which apologized to Japanese internees, provided reparations and created a public education fund to "inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event."

Congress should have enrolled in its own re-education program.

By passing the Military Commissions Act (a.k.a. the torture bill), Congress has granted the Bush administration extraordinary powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terrorists and their supporters. Anyone anywhere in the world at any time may be summarily classified an "unlawful enemy combatant" by the executive branch, seized and detained. Only aliens are subject to military trials (I've updated my original post here to more accurately describe persons subject to military commissions; see sec. 948a-c in text of legislation). As Bruce Ackerman points out in the LA Times, the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" includes those who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" (by say, writing a check to a Middle East charity) and may extend to US citizens. Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, US citizens at least appear to retain habeas corpus rights, a foundation of Western jurisprudence. Foreign nationals do not; the Act explicitly denies them the writ of habeas corpus (the right to be charged and tried and the right to appeal any convictions in a court of law).

These wartime powers rival and exceed those assumed by Roosevelt during WWII. Even worse, unlike the case of Executive Order 9066, Congress has given President Bush the stamp of legislative authority. In this context, perhaps the most craven vote cast for the torture bill came from Senator Arlen Specter. Though he believes the bill to be "patently unconstitutional on its face," he voted for it anyway because he hopes "the court will clean it up." But there's no reason to believe the courts will act in such a manner.

As Ackerman points out, the Korematsu case, which validated Japanese internment, still stands as precedent. Since September 11, federal courts and the Bush administration have used Korematsu-like language to define a state of emergency and justify racial profiling. (And wing-nuts like Michelle Malkin have argued that racial profiling and detention of Japanese during WWII was justified, as is profiling and detention of Arabs in the war on terror). As Ackerman argues "congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to further mass seizures."

Moreover, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court case that temporarily jeopordized Bush's extra-judicial detentions, specifically cited lack of Congressional approval. Now Congress has given him this approval.

For those who believe that mass internment can never happen again, the US now holds 14,000 detainees in prisons in Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan and other undisclosed locations. 14,000 people who can be held indefinitely, without a fair trial, by secret evidence to which they have no access or that may be obtained by what most consider torture. 14,000 and counting. Never again is now.

Comments (53)

1. so, what should we do as US citizens? openly defy the government?

   how can we just sit back and watch?

   or, do we move to canada, and start growing medical marijuana?

   Posted by darladoon at 10/01/2006 @ 1:35pm

2. ZERO

   Actually, Executive Order 9066 was promulgated pursuant to legislation. The Korematsu opinion specifically references it

   In the instant case prosecution of the petitioner was begun by information charging violation of an Act of Congress, of March 21, 1942, 56 Stat. 173, which provides that

   ". . . whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $ 5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense."

   Certainly not a justification, but it does indicate Congressional complicity.

   Posted by brunowe at 10/01/2006 @ 2:09pm

3. 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.

   I wonder if the hamsters consider their assault on liberty as a continuance of the own rebellion from the 1860's, so therefore it's OK to suspend habeas corpus.

   or do they consider their rise to power an invasion, which also means it's OK to suspend habeas corpus.

   Because there own policy of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"... constitutes neither invasion or rebellion

   Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 2:20pm

4. Richard Kim....do you READ "The Nation" or look at its website?

   Just curious, because as I've stated ("ad nauseum" to some here)....this magazine both on its cover story of last week and in CONTINUEING banner ads...

   is supporting Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)...who voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act".

   Of course, as was "explained" to me....he "had to" because otherwise it would have "given DeWine too much ammo to use against him".

   Posted by Mask at 10/01/2006 @ 2:20pm

5. is supporting Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)...who voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act".

   Posted by MASK 10/01/2006 @ 2:20pm

   I saw a Cherrios ad on ABC this morning. I always thought the media just sold advertising space.

   but you say they're do so because they support Cherrios.

   Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 2:27pm

6. Richard Kim....do you READ "The Nation" or look at its website?

   Just curious, because as I've stated ("ad nauseum" to some here)....this magazine both on its cover story of last week and in CONTINUEING banner ads...

   is supporting Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)...who voted FOR the "Military Commissions Act".

   Of course, as was "explained" to me....he "had to" because otherwise it would have "given DeWine too much ammo to use against him".

   Posted by MASK 10/01/2006 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

   Remember when the Republicans held the minimum wage hostage unless/until they got their repeal of the Paris Hilton estate tax. Mask proclaimed that it was political brilliance and openly stated that he admired the Republcans for doing it.

   Yet, when Sherrod Brown demonstrates some political dexterity, Mask demonizes him?!?!?

   Not only Sherrod Brown, but Mask also keeps trying to pound The Nation for refusing to pull ads for Brown, even though The Nation has written MANY times that they won't jerk ads based soley on their oppositin to the opinions of those placing the ads. (It's called integrity Mask...a concept with which you are clearly unacquianted.)

   Given Mask's preoccupation with hypocrisy and professioed revulsion towards those who practice it, he must REALLY hate lookng in the mirror each morning!!

   Posted by Lillian at 10/01/2006 @ 2:39pm

7. That's professed revulsion...

   And Mask's morning routine MUST include projectile vomitting after being forced to look at himself in the mirror when he shaves and brushes his teeth. For someone who hates hypocrites as much as he professes, the self-loathing must be unbearable!!!

   Posted by Lillian at 10/01/2006 @ 3:20pm

8. "because otherwise it would have given DeWine too much ammunition to use against him." No surprise there. Scratch a politician and you find a politician - nothing else.

   The horrifying thing is that DeWine constituents, apparently out of sheer terror, would willingly sacrifice their Constitutional rights to the whims of a George Bush, a certifiable nut case. We've turned into a nation of frightened, cowering wimps. The fact that we look to the biggest wimp of all, George Bush, to "protect" us is downright bizarre.

   Posted by felicity at 10/01/2006 @ 3:34pm

9. Wow. I've seen hysteria, but this is a little ridiculous. Doesn't anyone think it's a little suspicious that this bill had nearly unanimous Republican support and a significant amount of Democratic support as well? Does anyone actually believe that that many Congressmen would create the kind of "dictatorship" that Mr. Kim's hypberolic rhetoric would suggest? Maybe if someone actually referenced the bill, it might be better than a series of assertions. Again, dictatorship actually means something, and this certainly isn't it.

   Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2006 @ 4:57pm

10. well, i am now openly rejecting the US government.

    i am re-locating to vancouver canada within 12 months, and will legally grow medical cannabis for AIDS and cancer patients.

    i've had it. from now on, i'll NEVER be able to visit north africa (one of the most beautiful places on earth), the middle east, or even places like indonesia. thanks king george, you fucking psycho!

    Posted by darladoon at 10/01/2006 @ 5:50pm

11. And the end result of all this is that these same paranoids still prefer to let terrorists have their way than to actually treat them like prisoners of war at the very least.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/01/2006 @ 5:57pm

    Luvvy

    we'd settle for treating them like prisoners of war. But you hamsters keep arguing that they are not prisoners of war and shouldn't be treated as such.

    for once in your life, do you think you could ever be honest?

    or is lying the only way you know?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 6:30pm

12. It is inconceiveable why anyone on the left would see a problem with such provisions, unless they in fact have something to fear by their overt or covert support for the enemies of the U.S.A.!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/01/2006 @ 6:50pm

    it's not inconceivable rio. It's the American way to not only have government of the people prove the charges that the people level against others, but to also give those against whom the people have leveled charges, the power to defend against those charges, to have representation, to see the evidence behind the charges.

    To do otherwise means you hamsters a free to trump up charges, make false accusations, and plant a system of injustice in the place that a system of justice used to exist

    And the creation of a system of injustice in this great land is the only thing the great Liberal Center of America fears.

    I personally rather die in a terrorist attack then see that happen.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 7:06pm

13. "It is inconceiveable why anyone on the left would see a problem with such provisions, unless they in fact have something to fear by their overt or covert support for the enemies of the U.S.A.!"

    i have a sneaking suspicion that the so-called 'global jihad' has little determination and capability to actually take over the united states of america. it is more than likely that attacks against americans are the direct result of:

    1. our support for israel

    2. our influence in a number of middle eastern governments

    3. our control of oil reserves and natural gas

    4. our carpet bombing of multiple countries in the region....

    what else?

    if i end up dying in a terrorist attack, well i'm party to blame, because i support the united states by paying taxes and voting. if i end up dying in a terrorist attack, i'm also just really unlucky.

    so, rio, when you talk about our "enemies", these are people whom i understand quite well. cuz i feel a similar amount of hatred for the same people. i wouldn't ever kill anybody, but i see where our "enemies" come from.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/01/2006 @ 7:15pm

14. 1."By passing the Military Commissions Act (a.k.a. the torture bill), Congress has granted the Bush administration extraordinary powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terrorists and their supporters."

    2."the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" includes those who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States"

    3."Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, US citizens at least appear to retain habeas corpus rights,"

    Yeah...none of these are actually bad, and I'll go through them individually to establish why.

    First, the ability to detain, interrogate and prosecute accused terrorists. I would love to see anyone actually make a cogent argument for why this is bad. It's not like it precludes trials; that's what the word "prosecute" means. It's also no different than the way prisoners of war are expected to be treated during wartime; you're not obligated to try everyone in the middle of a war. Just like I asked before, were all of Lincoln's actions during the Civil War unjustified?

    Second, the idea of an enemy combatant being anyone who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This also seems fine; the funny thing about funneling money to a Middle Eastern charity that you didn't know involved terrorism is that it isn't purposeful.

    Third, US citizens retain habeas corpus rights. Clearly fine.

    If provisions like these are the best that opponents of the bill have to offer, then their position makes no sense. Words like "purposeful" and "prosecute" mean something, as do words like "dictatorship," something that seems to elude many of this bill's harshest critics.

    if i end up dying in a terrorist attack, well i'm party to blame, because i support the united states by paying taxes and voting.

    This argument is retarded, for at least four reasons. First, it presupposes that the terrorists' grievances are actually legitimate, meaning that they're acting against some unjust action that the United States has taken. The problem with this, as should be apparent, is that they're not. If their objection is the fact that the US has some presence in the Middle East, or that we support the ongoing existence of Israel, their actions are plainly unjustified. Second, this also presupposes that the terrorists' means of action are justified; this is also patently false. Even if you have a grievance against a country, that doesn't mean you get to deliberately innocent civilians and only innocent civilians. Having civilian casualties is one thing, but specifically aiming at innocents is another. Third, even if the terrorist' actions were a justified response to oppression of some kind, that doesn't make you in any way culpable. The thing about democracy is that people can vote for the guy who doesn't win. As a result, that minority cannot be blamed for what happens when their opponent is elected into office. Fourth, withholding taxes isn't justified anyway, because (oddly enough), the money from your taxes goes to a bunch of different places. People not paying taxes means that roads and infrastructure don't get build, children don't have viable schools to go to, and the country can't function.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

15. The neocon Bush buttmonkeys either have no consciences or no brains (I'm thinking a smattering of both).

    Any constriction of civil liberties is a negative. To give the president (regardless of party) such broad powers to interpret international and US law as he sees fit, well, that is simply unconscionable. For the reactionaries on the right, it is my only hope that someday they experience what this insanity may bring about, just to hear them piss and moan about the intrusion of the government into their lives (isn't that what those conservatives and libertarians are always shouting about?)

    And it is continually confounding how the neocon Bush buttmonkeys, who are always crowing how it's they that support America, can fail to see how American loose interpretation of constitutional and international laws may create extremely dangerous situations for Americans. The big argument concerning the lack of coverage of the Geneva Conventions is that the terrorists aren't really soldiers. because they don't wear official uniforms - then what about the thousands of American "contractors" running around Iraq? They are not wearing uniforms, but they act like and in concert with the US military. Are they covered by the Geneva Conventions? Can we honestly complain over any mistreatment of armed (yet un-uniformed) Americans engaged in hostilities, when we claim a different set of rules apply to armed (yet un-uniformed) foreigners? I know, I know, "We're right and they're evil!"

    But what makes us right and them evil? Isn't it the notion that we are more civilized? Isn't it that we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard? Can we use illegal, immoral, or otherwise questionable techniques and still claim the high ground?

    Reactionaries can yell about supporting America and doing whatever it takes, but that's not going to win the real battle, which is battle of philosphies, if the philosphies of both sides seem to be written on in the same ink.

    I want to "win" by using every method possible, assuming that the method doesn't make America as disgustingly amoral as the terrorists.

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/01/2006 @ 8:41pm

16. First, the ability to detain, interrogate and prosecute accused terrorists. I would love to see anyone actually make a cogent argument for why this is bad. It's not like it precludes trials; that's what the word "prosecute" means. It's also no different than the way prisoners of war are expected to be treated during wartime; you're not obligated to try everyone in the middle of a war. Just like I asked before, were all of Lincoln's actions during the Civil War unjustified?

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    you're a little wishy washy here thrawn. first you say the law doesn't preclude trials and then you say that the govenment isn't obligated to try everyone in the middle of a war.

    we're always going to be in the middle of the war on terror.

    does the governemnt have a obligation under this law to try people who are accused of being unlawful combatants in some sort of timly mannor or can the government just hold those accused for their lifetimes while we wait for the endlesss war on terror to end?

    which is it?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 8:43pm

17. Second, the idea of an enemy combatant being anyone who "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This also seems fine; the funny thing about funneling money to a Middle Eastern charity that you didn't know involved terrorism is that it isn't purposeful.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    this goes back to my last post. Do you beleive the govenemnt must be able to prove purpose or do we just take their word for it?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 8:46pm

18. This argument is retarded, for at least four reasons. First, it presupposes that the terrorists' grievances are actually legitimate, meaning that they're acting against some unjust action that the United States has taken. The problem with this, as should be apparent, is that they're not.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    then Abu Ghraib was just?

    rendition and torture just?

    invasions based on lies without a declaration of war or UN resolution... just?

    the imprisonment of afghani farm boys without the right to council or trial...just?

    or are they legitimate grievances?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 8:52pm

19. Second, this also presupposes that the terrorists' means of action are justified; this is also patently false. Even if you have a grievance against a country, that doesn't mean you get to deliberately innocent civilians and only innocent civilians. Having civilian casualties is one thing, but specifically aiming at innocents is another.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    attacking military and economic targets are what we do. and if there are civilians inside, we call them collateral damage to help ease our conscience

    nice huh?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 8:56pm

20. Third, even if the terrorist' actions were a justified response to oppression of some kind, that doesn't make you in any way culpable. The thing about democracy is that people can vote for the guy who doesn't win. As a result, that minority cannot be blamed for what happens when their opponent is elected into office.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    goveremnt of the people derives it's power form the consent of the people. It doesn;t matter that you voted for the guy who lost. the guy who one is your representation and acts in your name with your consent.

    and if he or she draws blood in our names... it's on all our hands.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 8:59pm

21. Fourth, withholding taxes isn't justified anyway, because (oddly enough), the money from your taxes goes to a bunch of different places. People not paying taxes means that roads and infrastructure don't get build, children don't have viable schools to go to, and the country can't function.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    yet not that long ago you where arguing that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for stem cell research.

    it's amazing how you drift with the wind.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 9:01pm

22. Posted by LILLIAN 10/01/2006 @ 2:39pm

    Come on LIL....just ONE lame-ass excuse for Sherrod?

    Then spend another 3 paragraphs on ME!

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2006 @ 9:08pm

23. If progressives are willing to hold their noses and vote for pro-torture Democrats, then where do they draw the line?

    Posted by green2006 at 10/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

24. Fourth, withholding taxes isn't justified anyway, because (oddly enough), the money from your taxes goes to a bunch of different places. People not paying taxes means that roads and infrastructure don't get build, children don't have viable schools to go to, and the country can't function.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 7:43pm

    yet not that long ago you where arguing that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for stem cell research.

    it's amazing how you drift with the wind.

    Posted by WILL C. 10/01/2006 @ 9:01pm

    Sounds vaugely like my response to Thrawn's unwillingness to fund scientific research too. Hmmmmmmmmm....

    Drifting indeed....

    ------------------------------------

    If progressives are willing to hold their noses and vote for pro-torture Democrats, then where do they draw the line?

    Posted by GREEN2006 10/01/2006 @ 9:45pm

    Damn good question.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2006 @ 10:06pm

25. This may be the first election, in my lifetime, that really will be "voting for the lesser of two evils" not just using that as a figure of speech.

    How sad. America is dying....I used to be so proud to be an American too.

    Sigh.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2006 @ 10:08pm

26. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not allow US citizens to be tried by a military commission. Yes a US citizen could be an unlawful enemy combatant under the act. Only alien unlawful enemy combatants are triable by a military commission. A US citizen has more rights than an alien when accused of crimes subject to the act. Were any unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial I wonder if there would be any doubt of its unconstitutionality.

    Given the clear language of the act, it is important for me to know what provision allows one to say that a US citizen may be subject detention or trial under the act. There does not appear to be language in the act regarding the detention of US citizens accused of crimes subject the act. Presumably civilian authority would apply.

    The act is distressing because it allows alien accused persons to be disappeared. A neighbor with a green card could be detained by the military and an accusation could lead to a death sentance imposed without appeal rights to US courts outside of the tribunal structure. The act says our constitution is for US citizens and our military tribunals are for the rest. I wonder if other states will now be more reluctant to allow their citizens to be surrendered to US custody where drumhead justice rules.

    Posted by cfwood at 10/01/2006 @ 10:23pm

27. Zero,

    I mostly agree with you assesment of the so called democrats. (Let's face it. Today's dems resemble yesterday's dems, as much as today's reps resemble yesterday's).

    The only thing I am sure of, (Maskian as this may sound), is that a third party vote still would ensure rep. congress. And I KNOW that'd be horrible. A dem. vote MAY also be just as bad. But it might be slightly better.

    Sad decision, based on sad options.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2006 @ 10:45pm

28. The only argument that anyone has made against this bill is this:

    we're always going to be in the middle of the war on terror.

    Other than that, there have been nothing but assertions and hyperbole. People continue to talk about a "shadow justice system" and such without ever defending their position, and this seems problematic.

    My response to this argument actually connects to a discussion with Darla from a while back. The issue isn't simply terror generally, but rather a conflict with specific terrorist groups who have specific goals. When we talk about the "war on terror," we're specifically talking about al Qaeda, so I don't think it's unreasonable to define the war's objectives in those terms. This means that the war isn't unlimited, because it's based on crippling the material capabilities of a particular terrorist group. Of course, if one rises to replace it as a significant threat, the war shifts to it (as should be fairly intuitive).

    Now, there are no actual arguments left against the bill. I ask again: if you reject things like military tribunals and revocations of habeas corpus, were Lincoln's actions during the civil war unjustified or weren't they?

    you're a little wishy washy here thrawn. first you say the law doesn't preclude trials and then you say that the govenment isn't obligated to try everyone in the middle of a war.

    No, what I'm doing is taking away any ground for opposition. I'm arguing that trials aren't categorically required, but even if they were, the bill still provides for them.

    Do you beleive the govenemnt must be able to prove purpose or do we just take their word for it?

    In what wartime situation does this ever happen? Can you give me a single war in which the government had to appeal to, say, the judicial system before imprisoning a single person?

    Next, onto Darla's argument.

    then Abu Ghraib was just?

    rendition and torture just?

    invasions based on lies without a declaration of war or UN resolution... just?

    the imprisonment of afghani farm boys without the right to council or trial...just?

    or are they legitimate grievances?

    Well...no, these things wouldn't just. If "Afghani farm boys" means Taliban fighters, though, yes, that's justified. However, that's irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the actual claims that terrorists themselves are making. It's absurd to argue that they're attacking based on Iraq, since they hated Saddam's regime to start with; it's not like they'd be furious that we toppled him. The reasons that you cited earlier (the only things which have also been constant throughout the period of terrorist attacks) have been things like our presence in the Middle East and our supporting Israel's existence. What you have to argue is that these things are fundamentally unjust, and I don't think you can.

    attacking military and economic targets are what we do. and if there are civilians inside, we call them collateral damage to help ease our conscience

    We specifically attack targets of military significance, where we expect those there to be actual combatants within the war itself. Even though we can be fairly certain that some innocents will die, we don't deliberately target them.

    goveremnt of the people derives it's power form the consent of the people. It doesn;t matter that you voted for the guy who lost. the guy who one is your representation and acts in your name with your consent.

    Precisely what does consent mean? The only way in which this makes sense is if you argue that we consent to the process. In that case, the only way we don't show consent is if we actively overthrow the government. Otherwise, we're still consenting to the process, and therefore anything that elected officials do. That's insane.

    yet not that long ago you where arguing that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for stem cell research.

    it's amazing how you drift with the wind.

    There's an important distinction between what the government should and shouldn't pay for, and whether individual citizens are justified in withholding taxes because they don't agree with what the government is paying for. The other thread was arguing about the first, and this one is discussing the second. So no, no drifting occurred. Also, for the record, I wasn't supporting the stem cell bill itself; I don't think it's a good thing. What I was doing is refuting the ridiculous notion that it was unconstitutiona.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

29. ...Along those same lines of thought, I plan to mostly vote against any incumbant, in every election. Too many people, too comfortable with their grip on power and too invested in a 'career' in politics.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2006 @ 10:48pm

30. The only argument that anyone has made against this bill is this:

    we're always going to be in the middle of the war on terror.

    Other than that, there have been nothing but assertions and hyperbole. People continue to talk about a "shadow justice system" and such without ever defending their position, and this seems problematic.

    My response to this argument actually connects to a discussion with Darla from a while back. The issue isn't simply terror generally, but rather a conflict with specific terrorist groups who have specific goals. When we talk about the "war on terror," we're specifically talking about al Qaeda, so I don't think it's unreasonable to define the war's objectives in those terms. This means that the war isn't unlimited, because it's based on crippling the material capabilities of a particular terrorist group. Of course, if one rises to replace it as a significant threat, the war shifts to it (as should be fairly intuitive).

    Hence the never-ending war.

    Now, there are no actual arguments left against the bill. I ask again: if you reject things like military tribunals and revocations of habeas corpus, were Lincoln's actions during the civil war unjustified or weren't they?

    Lincoln, revoking Habeas corpus, during a civil war (read; rebellion) on our soil is relevant to bushco doing it here and now? Huh?

    Besides, justified or not, it bears no relevance on what is appropriate now.

    you're a little wishy washy here thrawn. first you say the law doesn't preclude trials and then you say that the govenment isn't obligated to try everyone in the middle of a war.

    No, what I'm doing is taking away any ground for opposition. I'm arguing that trials aren't categorically required, but even if they were, the bill still provides for them.

    Not "categorically required" (read; we can do as we please) til the "never-ending war" ends?

    Do you beleive the govenemnt must be able to prove purpose or do we just take their word for it?

    In what wartime situation does this ever happen? Can you give me a single war in which the government had to appeal to, say, the judicial system before imprisoning a single person?

    This is not a war, or the detainees would be POWs. They are instead, "illegal enemy combatants". Ya know, picked up in illegal combat.

    Seriously, this is a distant war and there is plenty of time to take care to follow the law here in America. Remember "we are fighting them THERE....". Who says they need permission to arrest them? Just to detain them indefinitely or torture them or kill them and cover it up. Why would either side want less than transparent governance?

    Next, onto Darla's argument.

    then Abu Ghraib was just?

    rendition and torture just?

    invasions based on lies without a declaration of war or UN resolution... just?

    the imprisonment of afghani farm boys without the right to council or trial...just?

    or are they legitimate grievances?

    Well...no, these things wouldn't just. If "Afghani farm boys" means Taliban fighters, though, yes, that's justified. However, that's irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the actual claims that terrorists themselves are making. It's absurd to argue that they're attacking based on Iraq, since they hated Saddam's regime to start with; it's not like they'd be furious that we toppled him. The reasons that you cited earlier (the only things which have also been constant throughout the period of terrorist attacks) have been things like our presence in the Middle East and our supporting Israel's existence. What you have to argue is that these things are fundamentally unjust, and I don't think you can.

    Ok, so our occupying their area of the world bothers no one???? Do you SERIOUSLY think that they like us better than saddam? Would I like saddam to come topple bushco. Or would you welcome castros help in kicking clinton out, when he was in?

    Get real.

    goveremnt of the people derives it's power form the consent of the people. It doesn;t matter that you voted for the guy who lost. the guy who one is your representation and acts in your name with your consent.

    Precisely what does consent mean? The only way in which this makes sense is if you argue that we consent to the process. In that case, the only way we don't show consent is if we actively overthrow the government. Otherwise, we're still consenting to the process, and therefore anything that elected officials do. That's insane.

    yet not that long ago you where arguing that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for stem cell research.

    it's amazing how you drift with the wind.

    There's an important distinction between what the government should and shouldn't pay for, and whether individual citizens are justified in withholding taxes because they don't agree with what the government is paying for. The other thread was arguing about the first, and this one is discussing the second. So no, no drifting occurred. Also, for the record, I wasn't supporting the stem cell bill itself; I don't think it's a good thing. What I was doing is refuting the ridiculous notion that it was unconstitutiona.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person

    To tired to thoroughly argue your last point. Only to say that I cannot follow the logic which says the govt. should tax to build roads and schools for people, but shouldn't concern itself with the actual health of those people. And I don't nessacarily mean nationalized health care. I am only referring to basic research. To that which is not profitable for the private sector to invest in yet.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/01/2006 @ 11:12pm

31. Now, there are no actual arguments left against the bill. I ask again: if you reject things like military tribunals and revocations of habeas corpus, were Lincoln's actions during the civil war unjustified or weren't they?

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    Lincolns actions were unjustified. Only congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus and then only in a time of invasion or insurrection. Lincoln should have gone to congress.

    in our current sutuation we have neither and invasion or insurection. Habeas coprpus shouldn't be suspended at all... for anybody.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 11:25pm

32. No, what I'm doing is taking away any ground for opposition. I'm arguing that trials aren't categorically required, but even if they were, the bill still provides for them.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    HA HA Ha Ha

    you're kidding me right? the bill provides for trials but nobody ever has to get one.

    that means they won't get one. So what good is the bill other than for window dressing?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 11:28pm

33. In what wartime situation does this ever happen? Can you give me a single war in which the government had to appeal to, say, the judicial system before imprisoning a single person?

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    in other wars we treated captured soldiers as prisoners of war.

    you don't want to do that in the war on terror. If you don't want to give them prisoner of war status then you must give those detained the same rights as anyone our government detains.

    you can't just make shit up out of thin air

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 11:38pm

34. While I usually think THRAWN is one of the most thoughtful conservatives here, this attempt to justify this legislation is quite unthoughtful. Whether he wishes to reference Lincoln or FDR, in all cases historical context must be understood--as Will and Eric have pointed out. The current context, wars against the (former) ruling parties of Afghanistan and Iraq, are deemed to be part of the administration's slogan "war on terror". Is the military attempting to differentiate between those fighting for their country (the fact that they are no longer ruling the country is irrelevant; we are the invaders, not they.) and those who are disconnected from a country and are killing for something else? If not, then no legislation can be passed at this time. Whether we want to man up and admit what we are doing or not, the fact is we are engaged in real wars to reform real governments in real countries. Those fighting against us within their own countries are, at worst, insurgents, and are thereby differentiated only by the fact that we do not care for their choice of clothing.

    And, Thrawn, when we stop bombing wedding parties, houses, reporters, and other civilians, then we can speak of what separates our tactics from those employed by terrorists. Until then, anyone involved in the many sordid affairs in Iraq should be locked away as enemy combatants. They are clearly not fighting for America as I understand it to be.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/01/2006 @ 11:40pm

35. Well...no, these things wouldn't just. If "Afghani farm boys" means Taliban fighters, though, yes, that's justified. However, that's irrelevant because it doesn't speak to the actual claims that terrorists themselves are making. It's absurd to argue that they're attacking based on Iraq, since they hated Saddam's regime to start with; it's not like they'd be furious that we toppled him. The reasons that you cited earlier (the only things which have also been constant throughout the period of terrorist attacks) have been things like our presence in the Middle East and our supporting Israel's existence. What you have to argue is that these things are fundamentally unjust, and I don't think you can.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    Well first of all I can and have argued that the isreali treatment of the occupied territories is unjust. For one, punishing the families of suicide bombers by bulldozing their homes...unjust.

    but lets go back to your own dishnesty. the insurgency in iraq, called terrorism by the chimps, has been fueled by our actions in iraq, and that includes everthing in my list. And our own intellegence agencys now say that iraq is creating more terrorists than we are killing. Yes they hated saddams regime, but now six out of ten of them want us dead.

    That isn't because we support isreal. It's because of our treatment of Iraq.

    and those afgani farm boys are allowed to defend there country from us. All citizens of every nation are allowed to defend their country from a foreign power. They of all people should be treated as prisoners of war.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 11:48pm

36. Posted by LILLIAN 10/01/2006 @ 2:39pm

    Come on LIL....just ONE lame-ass excuse for Sherrod?

    Then spend another 3 paragraphs on ME!

    Posted by MASK 10/01/2006 @ 9:08pm | ignore this person

    Mask, here you are STILL desperately trying to suck 'someone...anyone' into a discussion of Sherrod Brown in order to change the subject. It's pathetic really...and everyone can see just how impotent it is!!!

    Spend 3 paragraphs on you Mask...my, you DO have quite a high opinion of yourself, don't you? To quote a word from LRJONES, your posts are clearly "twaddle"...that's Aussie for BULLSHIT!!! YOu can certainly keep posting more of it Mask, but you can't cover it up...the smell is unmistakable!!

    Posted by Lillian at 10/01/2006 @ 11:53pm

37. We specifically attack targets of military significance, where we expect those there to be actual combatants within the war itself. Even though we can be fairly certain that some innocents will die, we don't deliberately target them.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    the pentagon and the world trade center were a military and an economic target. Is it ok that ossama attacked them if he says he was fairly certain that some civilians would die but that he wasn't specifically targeting them?

    remember he did attack early in the morning before they filled up.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/01/2006 @ 11:53pm

38. Posted by WILL C. 10/01/2006 @ 11:53pm

    Will,

    You've seen the videotape of Atta in the airport. No spit and polish uniforms. No camo's. It's not the targets. It's the clothes.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/02/2006 @ 12:01am

39. Precisely what does consent mean? The only way in which this makes sense is if you argue that we consent to the process. In that case, the only way we don't show consent is if we actively overthrow the government. Otherwise, we're still consenting to the process, and therefore anything that elected officials do. That's insane.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    What does consent mean? You not going to start pondering the meaning of "is" anytime soon are you.

    Through our constitution the people of this country gave their consent to the establishment of representative government. In doing this they agreed to abide by the results of the decisions of that government as long as the mechanisms laid down in our constitution were dutifully executed.

    When our representatives make a decision it done so with our consent. And no we do not have an option of insurrection. The options we have are the options we agreed too in our constitution.

    They are the options we consented too

    It's sad that you think they are insane. They are the principles our nation was founded on

    Posted by Will C. at 10/02/2006 @ 12:06am

40. You've seen the videotape of Atta in the airport. No spit and polish uniforms. No camo's. It's not the targets. It's the clothes.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/02/2006 @ 12:01am

    They do say the clothes make the man.

    I wonder if they are covered by Geneva if they make their uniforms tan kakis and a button down oxford shirt.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/02/2006 @ 12:09am

41. There's an important distinction between what the government should and shouldn't pay for, and whether individual citizens are justified in withholding taxes because they don't agree with what the government is paying for. The other thread was arguing about the first, and this one is discussing the second. So no, no drifting occurred. Also, for the record, I wasn't supporting the stem cell bill itself; I don't think it's a good thing. What I was doing is refuting the ridiculous notion that it was unconstitutiona.

    Posted by THRAWN 10/01/2006 @ 10:46pm

    first of all government of the people can really spend money on whatever the people want it to spend money on. It's our govenment, our many and we make the rules

    unless there is a specific prohibition in our constitution.

    and everybody has to pay their taxes regardless of whether they have an objection to how the money is being spent.

    it's part of the whole consent thing

    and face it buddy, you're drifting

    Posted by Will C. at 10/02/2006 @ 12:15am

42. Posted by WILL C. 10/02/2006 @ 12:09am

    Are you saying...really? Are you actually telling me that...

    ...those pimply droids in Best Buy and Blockbuster are (shhhhh) terrorists?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/02/2006 @ 12:19am

43. ..those pimply droids in Best Buy and Blockbuster are (shhhhh) terrorists?

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/02/2006 @ 12:19am

    the only thing that saves them from being shipped off to syria is the name tag.

    (little things do mean a lot)

    Posted by Will C. at 10/02/2006 @ 12:31am

44. ZERO: re: Nobody will ever know if a US citizen is disappeared under the torture bill...

    That act does call for an annual report to be prepared to Congress of commission activities, so there is a mechanism in place for congressional oversight. I don't see in the act language that allows US citizens to be disappeared. Why would the government disappear a citizen "under" a law that doesn't authorize it? Wouldn't be prudent!

    I was asking if anyone saw such language in the act because I don't. I thought the author of the article may have slipped when he suggested the act may apply to US citizens, which dials the alarm volume up unnecessarily. I'm alarmed enough that an alien can be accused of a crime under the act and be precluded from using judicial remedies available to US citizens and most citizens of the Western world. I use the words alien and accused to emphasize that an accused is not guilty at the time of detention.

    Some of the discussion here refers to questions about what to do with terrorists. The point is that they are accused, with the finding of guilt or innocence yet to be determined. As accused persons, aliens are denied some fairly fundamental rights to self defense by the act. A conservative might care about guilt and the fairness of the rules by which guilt is established and punishment applied. A conservative might care about the Constitution and its applicability to an accused person's ability to obtain justice under it regardless of nationality. If caring for neither, a conservative might care that other governments may not transfer suspected terrorists into US custody because of those governments' concerns about the suspects' crippled rights before a military commission, hurting the so called war on terror they claim to care so much about.

    Another observation: the act applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants. Take out the word alien and then US citizens are subject persons under the act, although to do so probably makes the act unconstitutional in part or in whole. The solution to the constitutionality problem in applying the act to any unlawful enemy combatant is to instead strip away a person's US citizenship, transforming her into an alien subject to trial by military commission. Something for the next Patriot Act?

    Posted by cfwood at 10/02/2006 @ 04:50am

45. Isn't it paradoxical that to allegedly protect our way of life the Bush Administration has sought to dismantle the very document that defines it? Terrorists could never do as much damage to this country as the Bush Administration has already done.

    A Serious Blow to Freedom [the-age-of-ignorance.blogspot.com]

    Posted by bdlomax at 10/02/2006 @ 08:40am

46. DarlaDoon asked what we could do about all this as American citizens. Zero said nothing. But there is something, if only as a measure of protest. Find a legitimate, non terroist Moslem or Middle Eastern charity of your choice, and send them a contribution. With all the spying they'll find out soon enough, to be sure. Let the authoritarians in Washington know that you, if not they, realize when the line has been crossed, even in wartime.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/02/2006 @ 11:31am

47. Whip it! Whip it good!

    Posted by woodyee at 10/02/2006 @ 2:48pm

48. Conservative: But, I'm not a terrorist - I'm not even a Liberal, I hate the Liberals.

    Interrogator: Youre wasting my time. Are you going to confess? Heres the deal, Confess - and we'll hang you right side up. Dont confess, and we'll bring in your wife and kids for alternative questioning.

    Conservative: What do you want me to confess to? I'm a Republican! I voted for George Bush!

    Interrogator: Alright. Youre going to make us a little video tape. Read the confession exactly, word for word. Dont try any fancy morse code signals with your eyes, and make it realistic, or our deal is off.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 10/02/2006 @ 5:42pm

49. I think that my position has been misconstrued, so I believe that it needs to be clarified.

    First, on the bill. I'm not necessarily in support of the bill myself; I agree with many of the commentators who say that it oversteps important bounds. What I did have a problem with, though, was the specific objections that Kim cited. I don't think that there's anything prima facie wrong with denying habeas corpus to enemy combatants during wartime, which is also why I feel that Lincoln (and virtually every wartime President after him) was justified in taking many of the actions that he judged as necessary. Even the Court has never held Constitutional rights to be absolute in their scope, as evidenced by countless wartime-related cases that they've adjudicated.

    I don't think that the government's willingness to curtail civil liberties is in and of itself unjust; the real question seems to be how much curtailment of civil liberties is justified. That's where the real discussion needs to be, and I don't think it's really gone there. Instead of yelling about the US becoming a "dictatorship," what we need is an actual debate. Any real discussion about the bill should not only reference the actual bill itself, but make arguments as to why the particular degree of curtailment that it allows is too much, either because it isn't efficacious or because its efficacy isn't worthwhile. These kinds of things need to actually be argued for rather than asserted, which is the big problem that I have both for people like Rio and for people like Zero. Very few people have even been remotely willing to do this, and I think that this is a real problem. The only way we will actually be able to address issues and fix problems is if we can make compelling arguments based on grounds that people of different ideological backgrounds can accept.

    The second thing I want to look at is the offhand claim that Darla made, which Will has fiercely defended. Though I disagree strongly with him, I appreciate that he's willing to engage me. That said, I think that his arguments are mistaken for a number of reasons.

    First of all, there's the question of consent. What Will argues is that the notion of consent undergirds our system, but I'm not entirely sure that this is true. It seems fairly intuitive that in order for me to consent to something, I have to be able to withdraw that consent later on, but consent to governmental power doesn't meet this standard at all. A significant portion of the population is incapable of reasonably leaving, meaning that they can't reasonably opt out of the system. According to Will's kind of argument, only the rich actually consent to government, which doesn't really make any sense. Moreover, it's unclear whether the basic idea of "tacit consent" would even survive in any other context; we tend to believe that consent requires some kind of positive affirmation, some kind of deliberate choice rather than the mere absence of such a choice.

    Second, there's the question of whether the terrorists can appeal to an injustice on the US' part that could justify them striking us in the first place. Will lists a lot of things that people could justifiably be mad at, but I think this misses the point. For one thing, only the Israel issue existed when bin Laden struck the Cole, or the Twin Towers for that matter. Even then, though, the only way this argument works is if our decision to pressure Israel to do otherwise would stop the terrorist attacks. It wouldn't, because they wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of Israel's non-existence.

    Also, the thing about prisoners of war (like the Afghans that you reference) is that you're not obligated to try them during the course of the war itself.

    Third, the difference between our tactics and those of the terrorists. He "attacked early in the morning, when there wouldn't be as many people there"? Please; your other arguments were decent, but this one is a little bit of a stretch. In addition, the World Trade Center wasn't "primarily a military target" by any stretch of the imagination. Again, my distinction applies; we target specifically military targets, and "having a few completely nonessential military officers" doesn't qualify a target as military. The World Trade Center was obviously a primarily civilian target, and thus out of legitimate attack bounds, even if a just cause existed.

    I'm glad that there are a number of people who are willing to engage in substantive argumentation here, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough. I think that we need more people willing to actually make arguments, and that the arguments made need to give more consideration to the balance that should be struck between rights and security during wartime, and actually make reference to the bill itself. That's what the real debate needs to be if it's going to have any efficacy in political discussion.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2006 @ 12:47am

50. Thrawn: "and actually make reference to the bill itself."

    S. 3930 as passed: Link ed text [loc.gov]

    ‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally ‘‘(a) PURPOSE.--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

    US citizen rights aren't curtailed by the act. Section 7 of the act, the habeas corpus provision, again applies to aliens, not citizens.

    A citizen can be an unlawful enemy combatant, but a citizen can't be an alien unlawful enemy combatant and there isn't any new detention power created by the act applicable to unlawful enemy combatants, as far as I can see.

    So the question is, why should it make a difference whether an accused person is an alien or a citizen with respect to their right to defend themselves against the consequences of the accusation? Is the justice system available to citizens just too good for a non-citizen? Is an alien accused person always guilty so no need for the same fairness standards applicable to a citizen? Does the new drumhead justice system discourage other governments from delivery accused terrorists into our custody, thereby hurting the so called war on terror? Isn't it kind of a bummer that a green card holder mutual friend of ours could be disappeared, facing a military justice system instead of the court system we have access to as citizens?

    I'm sure there are other questions within the scope of the act, but most of the commentary here doesn't seem to be informed by an actual reading of the act. My concern is that maybe my reading is in error or incomplete. I still am hearing media commentary that speculates that US citizens are pulled within the scope of the act and I just don't see such language. Such commentary may have been inspired by language in earlier versions that didn't make it into the bill in final form.

    I'm inclined to see it this way: after 9/11 some 1,500 to 2,000 people were detained in the US as suspected terrorists. Most, if not all, were totally innocent and suffered from our hysteria in ways a citizen wouldn't have. I don't see how we were better protected by that alien specific process. I don't see how the act, by retrospectively sanctioning bad acts and permitting them in the future, better protects us. I do see how the act protects Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al from prosecution for their now formerly illegal acts.

    Posted by cfwood at 10/03/2006 @ 04:38am

51. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist.... but..... anyone else out there noticing that the Foley issue has overshadowed this flagrant breech of both the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution?

    Foley is a depraved individual and a symbol of where our leadership has gone over the last 6 years,

    but the issue of weather our (elected-by-idiots) government is allowed to "disappear" and torture people with impunity is world-changing.

    Could the outting of Foley-the-pederast be a very well timed, well planned way of filling simple American minds with foul clap-trap so that they are diverted from the effort of trying to understand the complexities of the Detainees Bill?

    Are We so dumbed-down? Are "they" so clever?

    Anyone else worried?

    Posted by akdamm at 10/03/2006 @ 7:11pm

52. Anyone else worried?

    Posted by AKDAMM 10/03/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Everyone who is paying attention.

    Posted by Malcontent at 10/03/2006 @ 8:17pm

53. yea. sad. how few do you suppose that actually is? 10%? .0001 percent? Why?

    Posted by akdamm at 10/03/2006 @ 9:23pm