Ask Me Help Desk - What is your take on this Bush critic?

"The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." Paul Starr in "The American Prospect". This is copied from another Bush critic and bastion of truth: George W. Bush Vs. The Constitution, Prospect: President's Conception Of His Powers Is Dangerous - CBS News

I believe the assertion that citizens can be arrested without fourth amendment protections is a lie. It isn't enough to assert anti-Bush feelings and politics. Can you prove this?

Who is Paul Starr? "Paul Starr (born May 12, 1949) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University. He is also the co-editor (with Robert Kuttner) and co-founder (with Robert Kuttner and Robert Reich) of The American Prospect, a notable liberal magazine which was created in 1990. In 1994 he founded the Electronic Policy Network, or Moving Ideas, which is an online public policy resource.

"At Princeton University, Starr holds the Stuart Chair in Communications and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School. The Social Transformation of American Medicine won the 1984 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction as well as the Bancroft Prize.

"In 1993, Starr was the senior advisor for President Bill Clinton's proposed health care reform plan. He is also the president of the Sandra Starr Foundation.

"Starr holds a B.A. from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from Harvard University." Wikipedia.

I doubt it is 'Bush's fault' but it is the direction things seem to be headed.
They sometimes use the Homeland security rules over the constitution.
Sometimes you get police and other authorities that abuse their power.
I have heard of *isolated* cases where they say "miranda rights, your phone call, etc are Hollywood get over it".
Actually they do not have to read your miranda rights until they take you to the processing room because they do not consider your sitting in the holding cell an arrest at that time.
I have seen and know of elderly and kids that the police have physically harassed because they asked "why are you arresting my son/dad?"

Here is a current story of many I have heard through the past few years. The father had said he had been a military medic and could and was caring for his son himself.

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

The Colorado sheriff who dispatched a SWAT team to break into a family's home, hold them at gunpoint and take custody of an 11-year-old boy for a medical exam sought by Social Services is defending the actions, saying the boy's father told officers to "bring an army" if they returned.

The 11-year-old, Jonathan Shiflett, had suffered bruises while horsing around in a mobile home park near New Castle where the family lives. But his father, Tom Shiflett, refused to allow paramedics who arrived after a neighbor apparently called 911 to treat his son, and refused to allow the ambulance crew to take Jonathan to a hospital.

Multiple visits by police officers and sheriff's deputies brought the same response, as did a visit from Social Services employees, who reported to court authorities: "Thomas Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army,'" according to an affidavit filed by Matthew McGaugh, a caseworker for the Garfield County Department of Social Services.

Sheriff Lou Vallario used that alleged threat in an e-mail response to a WND reader who questioned his actions. Vallario also criticized WND reporting on the events to a local newspaper, without contacting WND with any concerns.

"Thank you for your concerns. I have had personal confrontations with Mr. Shiflett and he has been threatening, agitated and violent. In 2005 we arrested him for chasing a man down the street with an ax and his statement in the report was, 'if he didn't run faster than me I would have planted the ax in the back of his head.' He was not convicted because of our 'Make my day' law (self defense of your home), but none the less he clearly demonstrated violence in this case as well as others. Further, when we requested his cooperation he said, 'if you want my son, bring an army,'" the sheriff responded via e-mail.

However, what the sheriff left out of his response was what McGaugh reported happened just before the alleged threat. McGaugh confirmed he had delivered a not-so-veiled threat to Shiflett.

"This worker explained that the Department had an obligation to investigate the report, that it appeared the child needed medical attention, and that if he didn't consent, the Department would have to obtain a court order to get a medical evaluation for the child," McGaugh stated in a sworn affidavit.

The "report" he was referring to was left undefined in his document. He wrote, "Caseworker Maria Hernandez-Lee and I went to the residence of the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, … to investigate allegations of medical neglect that had been reported to the Department."

Cindy Fuqua, who is on the ambulance crew summoned by the neighbor, also submitted an affidavit in which she explained how she and others with the ambulance crew went into the home where Tom Shiflett said they could look at Jonathan but not treat him.

Fuqua confirmed, "I was asked to go get the jump kit from the ambulance and take it inside. When I arrived inside I took out the stethoscope and blood pressure cuff to get vital signs and the father stated, 'I said you can check him out but that is all you will do.'"

She continued, "The pt's [patient's] father became very agitated and verbally abusive to all the ambulance crew. We were told by the pt's father that we were trespassing and that we needed to leave. I explained … that per our medical/legal protocols that we would have to contact medical control to get a refusal cleared and that if the ER DR cleared it we would have to have a family member sign the refusal."

"The father stated, 'I will not or anyone else here will not sign anything,' that we could have the person that called 911 sign the refusal form because he didn't call us."

Tom Shiflett has told WND he didn't give the crew permission to enter his home – they just entered when the door was open, and that with his medical experience in Vietnam, he already had evaluated his son and was treating him with an ice pack on his bruised head.

He also told WND he made the comment about the "army" because social workers had upset him by threatening a court order. And he explained the charges from years ago, which were dropped by the prosecutor, stemmed from a confrontation in which a man came into Shiflett's home and started making demands, and refused to leave.

Fuqua reported that the ambulance crew left "because we were worried about our safety," and when they left, they waited nearby for an officer from the Garfield County sheriff's office to "talk to him about this call."

The sheriff's e-mail response also continued:

"Finally, a very important part of this that NOBODY wants to report is that we sent 2 deputies to his door to explain the seizure warrant (a warrant generated by social svcs but ordering ME to do this unfortunate deed) and ask for his cooperation. He refused, became vulgar and broke off contact. Based on the previous history I felt I had no choice but to elavate (sic) our response to comply with this court order. The good news is that nobody was hurt and the boy was not seriously injured, as believed to be by the ambulance crew and social svcs," the sheriff wrote.

"I hope this helps give you an accurate acount (sic) of the events, not the media-biased reports or even the Shiflett's accounts who clearly have a biased perception," he wrote.

But Vallario also told WND he simply told his officers to do exactly what the magistrate demanded.

"I was given a court order by the magistrate to seize the child, and arrange for medical evaluation, and that's what we did," he said.

However, the "Search warrant and order for medical treatment" that was issued by the court ignored the parental treatment of Jonathan's injury, instead finding he was injured, and "Thomas Shiflett, refused to allow the minor child to have medical attention. …"

"The court finds that there is probable cause to believe … Thomas Shiflett, the biological father of the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, has mistreated the minor child due to his failure to provide the minor child with proper or necessary medical care …" the document said.

Eventually, the court-ordered doctor's exam resulted in instructions to the family to treat Jonathan's injuries with ice and painkillers, the exact treatment they already had been doing before the ambulance even arrived, they have told WND.

But the order included no recommendation for a SWAT team campaign, only directing the sheriff's office to "search the home … and to take the minor child, Jonathan Shiflett, into immediate custody."

Tina Shiflett, Jonathan's mother, wrote in a letter sent to WND that she considered the actions "Nazi" tactics and reported that the SWAT officers told her her "rights" were "only in the movies."

During the attack, his mother wrote, "One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

"To the SWAT Team members … how far will you go in 'just doing your job?' If you feel no guilt busting into an innocent family's home, traumatizing young children and stomping the security found therein, will you follow more horrific orders?" she wrote.

"May I remind you that in Nazi Germany, outrageous, monstrous crimes were committed by soldiers 'just doing their job?' What will be next? Where will this stop?" she wrote.

A WND message left for Deborah Quinn, the assistant Garfield County attorney who requested the court order, was not returned. Westcare Ambulance officials have declined to allow WND to ask question about the case, and court officials declined to allow WND to leave a message for Magistrate Lain Leoniak, who signed the order.

The family also added details to the sheriff's explanation of having two officers knock on the family's door and ask for cooperation.

"Between 10 and 11 … a sheriff came to the door. My husband met him at the window and he began to question my husband. My husband spoke with him and answered all his questions. The sheriff then said if Tom would just let him speak with Jonathan (our 11-year-old son) this whole matter (story following) would be closed," Tina Shiflett wrote.

"Tom said, 'You are saying if I let you speak to Jonathan this whole matter will be closed?' Then Tom called for Jonathan to come to the window," she said.

"As soon as Jonathan was visible to the sheriff, a SWAT team appeared shining lights on Jon's face and others were bashing at the door with a ramming device. My daughter resisted and pushed against the door to stop them as she didn't know who they were. I told her to back up and not try to fight them. They then entered our home, held a gun to my daughter's face and others of them, five or more, rushed into the living room and physically forced my other children to the ground."

NOhelp4u writes: "Sometimes you get police and other authorities that abuse their power." This is true, has always been, and always will be.
But let us focus on President Bush and his efforts against terrorism at home, and determine whether he sponsors arrests without fourth amendment protections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

I believe the assertion that citizens can be arrested without fourth amendment protections is a lie. It isn't enough to assert anti-Bush feelings and politics. Can you prove this?

Hello George:

Sure I can.

It's even more than an inherent power, as the writer suggests. It's an explicit power - to wit:

The Military Commission Act "suspends" the right of Habeas Corpus for those George Bush declares to be an enemy combatant. Habeas Corpus is the right we have to challenge our arrest and detention because of, say, Fourth Amendment Rights violations, or because of any other reasons...

You might say OK, the Military Commissions Act only pertains to the bad guys Bush catches on the battlefield. You might say that it doesn't apply to you.

You might say that. But, you'd be wrong. It DOES apply to you, because if George W. Bush declared YOU to be an enemy combatant, you wouldn't have any rights to complain to a court that you weren't.

Therefore, I believe that citizens can be arrested and detained without Fourth Amendment protections - in fact without any Constitutional protections at all.

excon

Thanks, excon, but not good enough. Show me where it says that; the burden is on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

You might say ok, the Military Commissions Act only pertains to the bad guys Bush catches on the battlefield. You might say that it doesn’t apply to you.

You might say that. But, you'd be wrong. It DOES apply to you, because if George W. Bush declared YOU to be an enemy combatant, you wouldn't have any rights to complain to a court that you weren't.

Therefore, I believe that citizens can be arrested and detained without Fourth Amendment protections - in fact without any Constitutional protections at all.

excon

Exactly! They apply the law to fit their agenda and that is how the swat team ends up beating down middle America's door because a sheriff and a case worker say so.

Well we can't apply the constitution so we will use Homeland security and other laws made since 9/11 to get the results we want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello George:

Sure I can.

It's even more than an inherent power, as the writer suggests. It's an explicit power - to wit:

The Military Commission Act "suspends" the right of Habeas Corpus for those George Bush declares to be an enemy combatant. Habeas Corpus is the right we have to challenge our arrest and detention because of, say, Fourth Amendment Rights violations, or because of any other reasons....

You might say ok, the Military Commissions Act only pertains to the bad guys Bush catches on the battlefield. You might say that it doesn’t apply to you.

You might say that. But, you'd be wrong. It DOES apply to you, because if George W. Bush declared YOU to be an enemy combatant, you wouldn't have any rights to complain to a court that you weren't.

Therefore, I believe that citizens can be arrested and detained without Fourth Amendment protections - in fact without any Constitutional protections at all.

excon

Exactly. I'm glad someone else has seen the complete disregard for the law that is the Military Commissions Act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

Thanks, excon, but not good enough. Show me where it says that; the burden is on you.

Hello again, George:

Well, without going into a longwinded legal analysis, here's the best I could do.

Although torture and related maltreatment remain federal crimes under the MCA (Military Commission Act), aliens who are declared by the executive to be enemy combatants have no ability to bring their claims to court.

Section 7 of the MCA eliminates the right of habeas corpus and the right to bring a petition challenging "any other action [by] the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial or conditions of confinement of" such persons.

Under the terms of the MCA, then, the government could declare a permanent resident alien--including someone who has been residing lawfully in the United States for decades--to be an enemy combatant, and lock him up, potentially forever. That alien--who could be your neighbor--would never have an opportunity to challenge his detention or treatment in a U.S. court.

I submit, therefore, that if the president may arrest your resident alien neighbor, he could arrest you, and you too would never have an opportunity to challenge your detention.

excon

OK, guys, get your glasses on and read the language of the quote: ""The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens...."
Your offering, excon, is: "aliens who are declared by the executive to be enemy combatants have no ability to bring their claims to court." We can distinguish between American citizens, to whom the constitution applies; and aliens and permanent residents (whatever that is), right?

I think sort of what Excon is saying is if they bend the rules then keep bending the rules and bending the rules more
Eventually
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

We can distinguish between American citizens, to whom the constitution applies; and aliens and permanent residents (whatever that is), right?

Hello again, George:

That's really the key factor, George. You nailed it. And, I agree with you absolutely.

WE could make that distinction... if we only had access to a judge who would hear our claim.

But, the Act doesn't give a person who has been declared to be an enemy combatant the opportunity to present his claim to a judge, even if he was wrongly accused.

So, when I use the word "we", I'm speaking about a judge. When you used the word “we", you're speaking about the cops/soldiers/CIA, et al. You trust that they'll make the right "distinction".

I don't at all! Nowhere in our legal system do cops have that power. That's a judge's job. That's why we (used to) have Habeas Corpus in the first place.

excon

PS> The problem with taking rights away from one group, is that your group may be next. Or to save time, they just might “declare” you to be a member of the first group. It would certainly be easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Those people aren’t able to make that distinction. Nowhere in our legal system do cops have that power. That’s a judge’s job. That’s why we (used to) have Habeas Corpus in the first place.

excon

PS> The problem with taking rights away from one group, is that your group may be next. Or to save time, they just might “declare” you to be a member of the first group. It would certainly be easier.

And few to none of them care to make a distinction. They would rather throw the book at you and call you a criminal that isn't worth their time. That is the whole problem with these new *rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by magprob

He said it best:
YouTube - Keith Olbermann - Military Commission Act 2006

Didn't he!!

excon: "So, when I use the word "we", I'm speaking about a judge. When you used the word “we", you're speaking about the cops/soldiers/CIA, et al. You trust that they'll make the right "distinction". "
Sorry, excon; you are misrepresenting what I wrote; I will try to straighten this out. At least you guys are pointing out something, The Military Commission Act 2006; but I thought President Bush has been perverting the constittution since before that? When you talk that trash, do you mean how he stole the election in 2000?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

Didnt he!!!

You talking about this Keith Olberman? A northeastern liberal born with a silver spoon in his mouth? "In November 2007, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph placed Keith Olbermann at #67 on their Top 100 list of most influential US liberals. They said that he uses his MSNBC show to promote, "an increasingly strident liberal agenda." They added that he would be, "a force on the Left for some time to come."[19] Investigative journalist Robert Parry has characterized Olbermann as being on the "left side of the scale."[20]

"Olbermann has responded to the accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[21]"

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

You talking about this Keith Olberman? A northeastern liberal born with a silver spoon in his mouth? "In November 2007, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph placed Keith Olbermann at #67 on their Top 100 list of most influential US liberals. They said that he uses his MSNBC show to promote, "an increasingly strident liberal agenda." They added that he would be, "a force on the Left for some time to come."[19] Investigative journalist Robert Parry has characterized Olbermann as being on the "left side of the scale."[20]

"Olbermann has responded to the accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[21]"

What's your point? Doesn't make anything he said any less true.

I got this from Wikipedia, and you fellows criticizing President Bush for stealing the constitution based upon the Act, passed by Congress, have a lot of explaining to do. It doesn't apply to American citizens:

"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter."

I don't see any connection between the complaints that President Bush is shredding the constitution and what this says; please help me out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

You talking about this Keith Olberman? A northeastern liberal born with a silver spoon in his mouth? "In November 2007, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph placed Keith Olbermann at #67 on their Top 100 list of most influential US liberals. They said that he uses his MSNBC show to promote, "an increasingly strident liberal agenda." They added that he would be, "a force on the Left for some time to come."[19] Investigative journalist Robert Parry has characterized Olbermann as being on the "left side of the scale."[20]

"Olbermann has responded to the accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."[21]"

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

It doesn't apply to American citizens:

Hello again, George:

I understand. Please try to follow along.

Let's say you, an American citizen gets yourself arrested by the CIA and they declare you to be an enemy combatant. Ok, that's a mistake. You are an American Citizen. The Act doesn't apply to you. I got it.

So, the next morning you fill out your writ to the court so you can get this whole thing straightened out... But, your jailer says, hold on podner, you don't have any Habeas Corpus rights because you're an enemy combatant. You’re not going to court.

So, there you are, an American citizen wrongfully confined, and nobody will listen to you.

Therefore, I suggest that, because of the real life scenario I just pointed out, the Act DOES apply to American citizens. If not, how come you can't get out of jail?

excon

Any citizen can challenge their detention before a judge per the Hamdi case.

The MCA was needed because SCOTUS ruled wrongly in the Hamdan case. Because of that the law was carefully crafted by Republican moderates like Sen .John Warner John McCain and Lindsey Graham .
The MCA applies only to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" and does not apply to U.S. citizens However, non-citizen U.S. residents, including green card holders, can be designated as alien unlawful enemy combatants.

The MCA passed the Senate, 65–34 and in the House, 250–170–12 .The President signed the bill. Ok How is this in any way the President seizing any power at all ? If the law is flawed then I'm sure it will go through the standard judicial review.

Habeas Corpus has never applied to enemy combattants illegal or otherwise. The biggest problem that I see with all of this is the emphasis on justice and trials which means that the Administration is moving back toward treating Islamic terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war.

The above post by Paul Starr cracks me up . While the cassandras continue to decry President Bush they continue to compare him to some of the greatest Presidents in our history. I guess he keeps good company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Any citizen can challenge their detention before a judge per the Hamdi case.

Hello again:

You guys are still missing the point. Maybe it's because you WANT to miss it. Maybe you love George Bush sooooo much, that you're willing to blind yourself to reality... Maybe it's because you believe that he wouldn't destroy your beloved country in one fell swoop. So, even in the face of that destruction, you keep your eyes closed. I don't know.

Let me try this again.

Yes, any citizen can challenge their detention... Unless Bush has declared them to be an enemy combatant. THOSE citizens CAN'T challenge their detention EVEN though it's a mistake.

I don't know what's so hard about this...

Let's say the FBI is looking for a guy named Hueseen Tomdan. He's a terrorist. They pick you up instead and render you away.

Again, I don't know what's so hard about this...

excon

Hello again:

YES, I got more!

"Oh", you say. "My government wouldn't make that mistake. I'm not dark, I don't speak Arabic. I'm obviously an American citizen....... I'm in New York City, for crying out loud."

But, what if it WASN'T a mistake? What if they wanted you for a murder or a robbery, but can't prove you did it? They can't arrest you for THAT...

"But wait a minute", thinks the FBI. "What if we declared mr tomder an enemy combatant, then we could wisk him away, and a judge will never know we did that."

What if you were just a political enemy??

Do you yet understand the implications of this Act? Are you going to tell me, in your right wing accent, that I don't have to worry about the cops? They wouldn't do that. I can trust 'em.

Is that what you'd be telling me?? Well, I wouldn't be buying it!

excon

Quote:

I believe the assertion that citizens can be arrested without fourth amendment protections is a lie. It isn't enough to assert anti-Bush feelings and politics.

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him. Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again. But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him. Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again. But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

I am getting a bit sick of hearing Dems/libs/fascists peddling this assertion, and that President Bush is ripping up the constitution. This query is what I call 'a fat, slow one', to give the critics an opportunity to prove their complaint. Surely they can find the arrest of one citizen which the US government wants to prosecute and rip-up the constitution.

excon writes: "Not only would I like to know about ONE prisoner, I'd like to know about ALL of 'em." no joke; so would Hillary, Chuckie, Leahy, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

Surely they can find the arrest of one citizen which the US government wants to prosecute and rip-up the constitution.

Hello again:

Still missing it, huh?

Not only would I like to know about ONE prisoner, I'd like to know about ALL of 'em.

But... They're being held in secret - incommunicado - with no access to lawyers or the courts. That's the IDEA. You DO know that, don't you?? I would tell you about an American, if I could...

But, THAT'S the point... We'll NEVER find out. You don't get it. Oh well. I'll keep trying. That's my job.

excon

Look, excon; I'm working up a thirst; what you drinking?

Hello again:

Let me close it out with one final thought.

We traded some liberties for security. We DID do that. I understand, in the face of the Bush fear mongering, WHY we did that.

Having given up some liberty for security, you must have known the trade off would result in YOUR lack of liberty. You really didn't think you could trade one for the other without a price, did you?? I guess, some of you DID think that.

Nope. Things just don't work that way. I'm just telling you what the trade offs are and how they affect YOU, your children and your family. I'm not surprised you don't like 'em. Who would?

excon

Thanks, excon; you are aware that this has been going on since the advent of 'judicial review', courtesy of Chief Justice John Marshall, another antagonist of the Declaration of Independence. See: "The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades (a term outliving his own Federalist Party) and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution." Wikipedia

We, in the South, attempted in 1861 a variation of the themes you rail about, and the Yankees taught us a very expensive lesson. There is a direct link from Lincoln to FDR, you know. These guys will stop at nothing; for some reason, W seems harmless. He appears to have more interest in attacking America's enemies than suppressing his own countrymen.

Hmmm I have made similar comments about Marbury v Madison here but have not heard anyone else speak of judicial review without reverence. Most take it for granted that it's written in the Constitution. Some here think that every aspect of our lives should be decided with the approval of the judiciary .

So

One side calls Bush, "fear mongering" and are afraid of our rights being taken away by the government - a legitimate if exaggerated concern.
However, they never seems to acknowledge or put as much emphasis on the real threat of terrorism.

The other side, in their zeal to go after terrorists, may fail to acknowledge potential violations of the rights of citizens.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hmmm I have made simular comments about Marbury v Madison here but have not heard anyone else speak of judicial review without reverence. Most take it for granted that it's written in the Constitution. Some here think that every aspect of our lives should be decided with the approval of the judiciary .

excon wrote: "We traded some liberties for security." My comment pertains to the notion that Americans have never had more freedom than they did when the British vacated Yorktown, 1781. The history of the US is replete with instances of us exchanging liberties for security; the issue crops up from time to time, and security usually comes out on top; there are examples where 'personal' liberties win, but not often.
One can't buy certain over the counter drugs without showing an ID card; which candidate has objected to that and is recommending 'change'? One can't go to a real estate closing (involving banking) without two sources of identification; which candidate objects to this and proposes any kind of 'change'? Unless you are a criminal or need an abortion, personal liberties are getting in short supply; this is nothing new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_cianci

I agree. I'd like to know of just one American citizen who's been arrested without a warrant and without hearing the charges against him.

Ever hear of Jose Padilla?
Jose Padilla (prisoner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
CIP Program : Core CIP Research : Jose Padilla : Feb. 2006 Article

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_cianci

Now an enemy combatant, that's something else again.

No, it's not something else again. An "enemy combatant" is whoever the Government says is one--citizen or non-citizen, it doesn't matter. Once a person has been so designated, their Habeas Corpus rights are gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_cianci

But when it comes to enemy combatants, I say imprison them, torture them, do whatever it takes to protect our country and keep it safe from those who would attack and kill us, a la 9-11-01. I'm sure I'll get lots of reddies for this but oh well.

So I guess you're OK with delegating the (unreviewable and unappealable) decision about who is and who is not an enemy combatant to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. You trust them a lot more than I do to get it right the first time, every time.

Welcome, ordinaryguy: Where did you get this: "No, it's not something else again. An "enemy combatant" is whoever the Government says is one--citizen or non-citizen, it doesn't matter." What is the definition of 'enemy combatant', and where did you find it?

Quote:

The history of the US is replete with instances of us exchanging liberties for security

Yep ; in the Paul Starr article you opened with he compares Bush to John Adams ;Abe Lincoln ,Woodrow Wilson and FDR... arguably a quartet of the top Presidents this country has had (at least by the prevailing opinion of historians ).Like I said ;Bush is then in fine company. I would need to have proof of this internment of even one American to even come close to comparing him to FDR's segregation into concentration camps of innocent Japanese Americans . He doesn' t even bring up the mass deportation of the Cherokee by Andy Jackson's 'fnal solution'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yep ; in the the Paul Starr article you opened with he compares Bush to John Adams ;Abe Lincoln ,Woodrow Wilson and FDR.... arguably a quartet of the top Presidents this country has had (at least by the prevailing opinion of historians ).Like I said ;Bush is then in fine company. I would need to have proof of this internment of even one American to even come close to comparing him to FDR's segregation into concentration camps of innocent Japanese Americans . He doesn' t even bring up the mass deportation of the Cherokee by Andy Jackson's 'fnal solution'.

Tom, I don't believe it would be accurate to call Bush entirely Wilsonian. Yes, in one respect: He believes the United States should be pushing our values around the world and turning other countries into democracies whether they like it or no, and I agree with him on that. Well, maybe I spoke to quickly, maybe he is entirely Wilsonian. Anyway, whatever he is similar to, thank God it's not Jeffersonian.:)

Is there some reason to believe Jose Padilla is not a "Party to the conflict (The War against Terrorism)?" Is there any reason to believe that he does have information that ought not to be made public?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Is there some reason to believe Jose Padilla is not a "Party to the conflict (The War against Terrorism)?" Is there any reason to believe that he does have information that ought not to be made public?

There is plenty of reason to believe that he is a US citizen who was seized on US soil (O'Hare Airport in Chicago), declared by the President to be an unlawful enemy combatant, held without access to legal counsel for a year and nine months, denied the right of Habeas Corpus and other due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution from June 9, 2002 until January 6, 2006, when he was finally remanded from military custody to civilian law enforcement authorities pursuant to a Supreme Court order to that effect. He was tried in civilian criminal court and found guilty of all charges on August 16, 2007, five years and two months after his detention. His trial lasted three months.