Does anyone else have a problem with this?

[Roxanne Appleby]

Eh? What sort of things?
- secret trials?
- torture?

Highly "streamlined" procedures that barely if at all even pay lip service to "due process."

I'm askin', not sayin'. Like I said, I've seen a few allusions, but nothing concrete.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Some of the info in that article seems ambiguous. The guy pled or pleaded gulty more than five years ago. Apparently, there was no trial, secret or other. Now he has been found with a lot of incriminating evidence. Does this mean the sentence was delayed while he provided info, and he was kept under surveilance until the evidence was found? If that's the case, then the sentence is proper, although unusual. A guilty plea is a conviction, and he chose that over a trial.

One way or another, I hope the scum stays locked up until he is dead and stinking.

 

[DesertPirate]

Highly "streamlined" procedures that barely if at all even pay lip service to "due process."

I'm askin', not sayin'. Like I said, I've seen a few allusions, but nothing concrete.

The French did many secret trials during the problem with Ageria. The methods of questioning they used make Gitmo look like a kindergarten. At different times in history the Brits have been just as bad.

Don't forget that Pakistan exists because the radical Muslims wouldn't support a unified India. If Ghandi couldn't negotiate with them, what makes you think anyone can?

 

[Pure]

note to rox

old RARhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do?

a 'rhetorical question' by definition is for effect on the reader/hearer, and by definition, no answer is expected.

---
my challenge to you, Rox: state the conditions, in the US constitution, in which habeus corpus may be suspended within the US, as applied to US citizens, in the absence of invasion or insurrection.



---
new rox:
My post included a challenge, Pure - why don't you undertake it?

"If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I read the news item again, and I am still puzzled. It says he was arrested shortly after 9-11. He secretly pleaded guilty, but was just now sentenced. That doesn't make sense. Normally, he would have been sentenced at the time, or within a few months. Certainly not five or six years.

The normal thing also would have been to enter the plea in open court. If this scum negotiated a plea bargan, he might have pled guilty in a closed court, and had sentencing delayed, while he ratted out his associates. The FBI or DOD of Homeland Security or whoever might have kept him in some form of confinement or house arrest, until they caught him with all the evidence that was described. After that, the sentence for the crime to which he had pleaded guilty would have be passed.

Plea bargaining is fairly common, and I can see why it would have been done secretly in his case,to keep his associates from knowing about it. If he had wanted a trialhe would have gotten one, although maybe not as speedy as he would have wanted.

 

[Pure]

BTW, I don't know but I have seen things that suggest that the UK and France governments have none of the delicate squeamishness about such things that are prevalent in the US - they are perfectly content to use all kinds of extra-legal procedures to deal with this challenge. True?

my imagination runs wild, but it tells me rox is saying something like,

the socialist tyrants of W. Europe arent' fastidious about dispatching 'terrorists' or suspects. whiney US liberals, however, continue to bedevil democratically minded leaders like GWB, who follow the best rights-preserving constitution in the world; these folks bring up minor niceties such as due process, and laying a charge and having a trial before a US citizen is sent to jail forever, when the US is struggling for its very existence against islamofascism and 'the enemy within.'
-----

rox, the libertarian, has no problem with abandoning even the basics of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including presumption of innocence.

i eagerly await rox's tome 'balanced libertarianism: living with the blessings of the Patriot Act, in the age of rampaging islamofascism.'

 

[ishtat]

Eh? What sort of things?
- secret trials?
- torture?

How about Jean Carlos de Menendez. Though the British police at least killed him in full public view.

 

[human_male]

I was brought up to believe this too. But then I went to work for the government and was able to read in on all sorts of prior practice cases. (So, unfortunately this isn't a new phenomenum by any means.) I do like your version best, though.

Oh, blast. I was just going to say welcome to the NEW America.

 

[ishtat]

Let's define rule of law first. It means laws adopted through a democratic process and enforced equally. It precludes giving any government official the discretion to disregard in a particular case procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the accused. The content of those procedural safeguards is not pre-determined, but is established pursuant to laws passed by an elected body, or past court rulings. The only limitation is that they must not violate the Constitution. OK so far?
.

No Roxanne you are quite wrong .

The rule of law in the USA does not depend on and has no origin in the US constitution. In fact it depends on a woman and predates the constitution by 200 years.

That woman was Elizabeth I who when she issued letters patent for the first attempt at north American colonisation in 1583 specifically included the provision that 'the law of this realm shall be applied'

She and subsequent English (not british) monarchs included a similar requirement in every colony which was attempted. it was this rule of law which made north American settlement fundamentally different from latin America where the colonists acted as the personal agents of the Catholic monarchs.

The rule of Law in the USA preceded any settlement and was applied from ouside by an English monarch. Democracy had nothing to do with it

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JJ

Well I guess you got it wrong, huh! You're such a Pollyanna!

I was brought up knowing that the gold makes the rules in every law enforcement investigation and trial. I witnessed it as a child and adult, and the practice is well documented. Gold gives you immunity, and gold gives you a license to do as you please. There is no equality before the law. Justice is not blind.

As an investigator I learned that fair, impartial, objective detective work is a career killer when an elite has a dog in the fight.

Read an objective biography of Dubya and his buds. Theyre worse than even Jenny Jackson imagines.

 

[ishtat]

The French did many secret trials during the problem with Ageria. The methods of questioning they used make Gitmo look like a kindergarten. At different times in history the Brits have been just as bad.

Don't forget that Pakistan exists because the radical Muslims wouldn't support a unified India. If Ghandi couldn't negotiate with them, what makes you think anyone can?

Factually wrong:-

1 Hindus hated Moslems in India in 1948 as their former masters (before the British) and killed rather more than vice versa.

2 Radical Islam was not an issue on partition 60 years ago.

3 Fundamentalism in India today is mainly fundamental Hinduism as exampled by the frequent destruction of mosques in recent years.

But you are right about the French and British imperialists

 

[Intrepid_Arjuna]

Factually wrong:-

1 Hindus hated Moslems in India in 1948 as their former masters (before the British) and killed rather more than vice versa.

2 Radical Islam was not an issue on partition 60 years ago.

3 Fundamentalism in India today is mainly fundamental Hinduism as exampled by the frequent destruction of mosques in recent years.

But you are right about the French and British imperialists

1. Killed rather more than vice versa? do you have figures?

2. Radical Islam was the reason why muslims were there in India in the first place. Go back a little more than 60 years to about 1600 years.

3. But for some strange reason, hindus are not frisked more than others on airports all over the world, they don't undergo racial profiling. And don't get me started on how many places of worship of any religion has "radical Islam" seen go down.

(I promised myself I wouldn't take part in political discussions, but this was just blatant!)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

old RARhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do?

a 'rhetorical question' by definition is for effect on the reader/hearer, and by definition, no answer is expected.

---
my challenge to you, Rox: state the conditions, in the US constitution, in which habeus corpus may be suspended within the US, as applied to US citizens, in the absence of invasion or insurrection.

---
new rox:
My post included a challenge, Pure - why don't you undertake it?

"If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do?

In this instance the individual is not a US citizen, so your question could be viewed as a way to dodge the challenge I presented to you, which is to say what you would do if the responsibility were yorus. Nevertheless, I'll answer:

How about you have an identifiable body of citizens who have de facto if not formally renounced their citizenship and are conspiring with foreign enemies to attack the United States in the form of terrorist acts that murder large numbers of our citizens? Preventing this clear and present danger requires investigatory techniques that compromise habeus, but failing to do so would compromise the duty specified in the preamble, "to provide for the common defense." These actions are nevertheless circumscribed by procedural safeguards designed to minimize the inherent risks of compromising habeus.

To repeat, there is ambiguity here and tension between Constitutional duties and limits - glib responses in either direction indicate a refusal to engage the realities of the real world we live.

"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity."
Eric Hoffer

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I promised myself I wouldn't take part in political discussions . . .

Oh c'mon!

I think those of us who enjoy it are able to view the activity as a kind of a game, which does not mean that we are any less sincere or passionate about the positions we argue.

 

[Intrepid_Arjuna]

Oh c'mon!

I think those of us who enjoy it are able to view the activity as a kind of a game, which does not mean that we are any less sincere or passionate about the positions we argue.

I guess I underestimate the place...I'm sorry...

but let me blame it on how I've seen a couple of those (at some other places) go down as slanging matches...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I guess I underestimate the place...I'm sorry...

but let me blame it on how I've seen a couple of those (at some other places) go down as slanging matches...

Yes, it's very different here. We say "please" and "thank you" as we fling mud.

Just kidding. It can get tense because everyone is passionate and sincere, plus articulate, and most are thoughtful, but in general civility prevails. Indeed, very unusual.

 

[Pure]

to rox

RAHow about you have an identifiable body of citizens who have de facto if not formally renounced their citizenship and are conspiring with foreign enemies to attack the United States in the form of terrorist acts that murder large numbers of our citizens? Preventing this clear and present danger requires investigatory techniques that compromise habeus, but failing to do so would compromise the duty specified in the preamble, "to provide for the common defense." These actions are nevertheless circumscribed by procedural safeguards designed to minimize the inherent risks of compromising habeus.

what is 'de facto' renunciation of citizenship? what is the legal basis for saying that a traitor, or one who commits treason or espionage has renounced citizenship?

did Aaron Burr 'de facto' renounce citizenship? why was he given a public trial?

Aaron Burr,
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001133

//arrested and tried for treason in August 1807 for attempting to form a republic in the Southwest of which he was to be the head, but was acquitted; went abroad in 1808; returned to New York City in 1812 and resumed the practice of law;//


exactly where in the 'due process' guarantees, Amendments 5 and 6, below, does it specify "US Citizens." Which of the rights in the BR are for citizens only? see some of the amendments below.

tell about this "identifiable body". what is its size? 5? 50? 500? 5000?, 50,000?

is it greater than the number of nazi spies, saboteurs, and sympathizers in the US, during WWII?

is it greater than the number of Soviet spies, agents, 'sleepers' and smpathizers in the US in the early 1950s?

is it more cunning, deadly, and dangerous than previous alleged 'identifiable' bodies?

====

US Bill of Rights



Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


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

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


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

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


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

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


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

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

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

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RAHow about you have an identifiable body of citizens who have de facto if not formally renounced their citizenship and are conspiring with foreign enemies to attack the United States in the form of terrorist acts that murder large numbers of our citizens? Preventing this clear and present danger requires investigatory techniques that compromise habeus, but failing to do so would compromise the duty specified in the preamble, "to provide for the common defense." These actions are nevertheless circumscribed by procedural safeguards designed to minimize the inherent risks of compromising habeus.

what is 'de facto' renunciation of citizenship? what is the legal basis for saying that a traitor, or one who commits treason or espionage has renounced citizenship?

did the Rosenbergs de facto renounce their citizenship?

exactly where in the 'due process' guarantees, Amendments 5 and 6, below, does it specify "US Citizens." Which of the rights in the BR are for citizens only? see some of the amendments below.

tell about this "identifiable body". what is its size? 5? 50? 500? 5000?, 50,000?

is it greater than the number of nazi spies, saboteurs, and sympathizers in the US, during WWII?

is it greater than the number of Soviet spies, agents, 'sleepers' and smpathizers in the US in the early 1950s?

is it more cunning, deadly, and dangerous than previous alleged 'identifiable' bodies?

I'll tell you what - you write the definitions. Or, acknowledge that you accept no conditions whatsoever that could ever warrant compromising habeus, no matter how clear, present and monstrous the danger.

 

[Pure]

to rox:

as per the US constitution,

domestic insurrection, civil war, and imminent invasion are likely cases where habeus might be suspended, in accord with the constitution.

you[Rox] have given no evidence that any of these hold.

you have given no reasons for assuming that only US citizens are covered under the Bill of Rights.

as to your theory of RA "clear, present and monstrous ... danger."

perhaps you can give its legal basis [apart from the above instances i've given], and further state whether there are any limits on the President's power should he decide there is 'clear, present, and monstrous ... danger.'

facts, roxanne, facts. no running about and saying 'the sky is falling, hail to the Commander in Chief.' please state why you believe the "islamofascists", al qaeda, et al are a greater danger to the US than were the nazis (and their pals inside the US).

 

[oggbashan]

How about Jean Carlos de Menendez. Though the British police at least killed him in full public view.

That killing was a real cluster-fuck scenario of how not to conduct an operation against a suspected suicide bomber.

What has to be remembered was that suicide bombers were operating in London at that time and that one of the possible bombers was living in Jean Carlos' block of flats. The only way to prevent a suicide bomber from detonating his device was to kill him instantly.

The Police and Security Services had ample opportunities to stop Jean Carlos before he entered the underground train. They had several chances of identifiying him. They fucked-up the lot.

What should they have done to an identified suicide bomber suspected of being wired to detonate? They should have stopped him in the open air with an armed team.

Jean Carlos died because the Police failed to follow their own procedures. His death was not because of UK policies in dealing with terrorists, but because of incompetence.

His death will have been pointless if a suspected and identified suicide bomber is allowed to board an underground train without being stopped.

The UK government is unhappy with the US about Gitmo and Extraordinary Rendition. They cooperated with the US who is an ally and a proven friend. That doesn't stop our politicians from expressing their concerns in private.

Og

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'll tell you what - you write the definitions. Or, acknowledge that you accept no conditions whatsoever that could ever warrant compromising habeus, no matter how clear, present and monstrous the danger.

Yes, Roxanne,

I understand what you say. However, the Fifth Ammendment states:

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This person was not in the "land or naval forces", he was not apprehended by the "land and naval forces" and I have not heard of any "War or public danger" going on in France where he was kidnapped by the CIA and spirited out of the country to...God knows where to be "interogated".

Note the 5th Amendment begins with the words, "No person..." It does not begin with "No citizen..."

To me this is a clear violation of the Constitution, another case of clear suspension of Civil Rights and a demonstration of the insane paranoia, of the Bush Administration.

Look at what he was accused of doing: Plotting to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Singapore. Did he blow it up? Was he one of the master minds behind the plot? What was the real reason he was tried in secret? Was the trail "fair"?

These question are the reason why the U.S. court system is public and open to public scrutteny. From this day forth, this guy's crimes will always be in question. Was he really guilty or was he the helpless fall-guy for a corrupt Administration trying to make themselves look like they are actually doing something other than destroying the U.S. Economy and persuing a hopeless war in Iraq?

 

[rgraham666]

Oh please. A relatively tiny number of loosely organized fanatics with poor finances, no manufacturing capability, dependent on others for logistical support and no technology higher that you can get at a Circuit City represents a 'monstrous' danger?

Some people really do miss The Cold War. Ah, for the days when life had meaning and great purpose.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I read the news item again, and I am still puzzled. It says he was arrested shortly after 9-11. He secretly pleaded guilty, but was just now sentenced. That doesn't make sense. Normally, he would have been sentenced at the time, or within a few months. Certainly not five or six years.

The normal thing also would have been to enter the plea in open court. If this scum negotiated a plea bargan, he might have pled guilty in a closed court, and had sentencing delayed, while he ratted out his associates. The FBI or DOD of Homeland Security or whoever might have kept him in some form of confinement or house arrest, until they caught him with all the evidence that was described. After that, the sentence for the crime to which he had pleaded guilty would have be passed.

Plea bargaining is fairly common, and I can see why it would have been done secretly in his case,to keep his associates from knowing about it. If he had wanted a trialhe would have gotten one, although maybe not as speedy as he would have wanted.

Box, don't waste your breath...they really don't care, they are to busy arguing what didn't take place and what never happened to listen to us.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

facts, roxanne, facts. no running about and saying 'the sky is falling, hail to the Commander in Chief.' please state why you believe the "islamofascists", al qaeda, et al are a greater danger to the US than were the nazis (and their pals inside the US).

Actually, I haven't really said that here. Here's what I did say:

Me: This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. We have never been here before, in an hot war against foreign non-state actors (with some fifth columnist natives). Should we pretend that we are not facing something unprecedented and genuinely dangerous, and allow either the standard criminal justice rules to apply, or the wartime POW rules? On the other hand, we can't just throw out our principles for expedience, either. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?

We are facing something unprecedented - an extremely hostile non-state foreign adversary. It is genuinely dangerous - 9/11 proved that. We shouldn't pretend these things or any other facts awat. We should seek balance, always. There do appear to be some limitations on regular criminal justice procedures that don't make any sense in this context. You were the one who specified habeus corpus as one of those, not me. It may be that I am very reluctant indeed to limit that principle in the present circumstances, which does not mean that I can't imagine any circumstance whatsoever where it would be the right thing to do.

I'm not trying to play games here. My point was that glibly condemning particular acts on absolutist principles may be great fun, but it's not very enlightening with regards to addressing the real challenges we face. If one wants to make an absolutist argument based on principle and history then by all means do so, but any serious contribution requires one to make an argument, not just an assertion. Or for my money, legalistic citations disconnected from underlying principles.

~~~~

There's a two-thread conversation going on here between Pure and I, the other one being my "OMG! Most powerful free speech statement." There, Pure is citing a statute to justify restrictions on political speech on the basis of an intention to expose a protected class to "contempt." That is a huge potential infringement in the service of an inherently arbitrary and subjective goal. In this thread the discussion is about any limitation whatsoever on a different right, in the service of a quite concrete goal - potentially preventing the murder of thousands of citizens.

As I have said many times, I think context matters.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

I am not a guru, but isn't the whole concept of democracy a deception? Just a question.

Most of the rights we USAians enjoy today don't originate in the American "democracy" but rather come out of England's feudal monarchy. Granted, we took rights that were limited to the landed elite and broadened them to cover all citizens, but they didn't originate as part of modern, western democracy.

Democracy and civil rights are two separate and independent things. You can have one, the other, or both. We're rapidly moving towards a democracy with drastically limited civil rights. The end result is the tyranny of the majority.