----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Charlie Bell >> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:24 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid >> >> >> On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans >> >> would >> >> be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology >> >> of >> >> the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of >> >> that. >> >> And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not >> >> providing a >> >> resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and >> >> balances, >> >> and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to >> >> get >> >> rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their >> >> own >> >> policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if >> >> there >> >> are two parties instead of one. >> > >> > But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's >> > executive powers >> > are less than those from FDR through Nixon....even after his big >> > push to >> > expand them. Checks and balances are still working. >> >> Erosion of, not suspension of. >> >> >> > The clearest example >> > of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with >> > Senators >> > from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got >> > reigned in >> > by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). >> >> Still, what is with the attempt to suspend _habeus corpus_? > > He's not actually doing that. Lincoln did that. Indeed, he's the > classic > example of presidential power. He has the state legislature of > Maryland > arrested on the way to a vote. The constitutional justification of > this was > the suspension of habeus corpus during the time of war. The > practical/principled justification was that, if they were allowed to > vote, > Washington DC would have been inside the Confederate states, and the > Union > would have been destroyed. > > So, if Bush were to do something like this, or even do something > like the > internment camps of WWII for Arab-American citizens, or use the > domestic > spying agency on his political opponents (as was done by > Hoover....who > wasn't elected to anything), then I'd be very upset. But, he's > pushing the > boundaries....not marching right over them. > > If you are interested, I can walk through the specifics. But, let > me look > at habeus corpus. Historically, including Supreme Court rulings, > the > Constitution does not cover the actions of the US government with > regards to > non-citizens who are not within the United States. So, the Viet > Cong who > were imprisoned in 'Nam did not have habeus corpus rights. The had > no > constitutional protection. > > Non-citizens within the United States do have rights. But, they > have some > limitations that citizens do not. In particular, those who are here > illegally can be detained for deportation. This can be done for a > very long > time. They can be deported at will. > > Bush has been very careful to limit the testability of his actions. > He > claims a great deal of presidential power. Traditionally, the > Supreme Court > would like the Congress to be the counter-weight to this....so they > weigh in > slowly. In addition, for someone to bring a court case, they have > to show > harm. Since no-one has been arrested as a result of the warrentless > wiretaps, then it is very hard for anyone to prove potential harm. > > Finally, the risk an American citizen has of losing his habeus > corpus rights > are very small. I think there is one case where an American has > been > declared an enemy combatant, without such rights, and there is some > justification for it (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but > that I > can see some Constitutional justification for the argument.) People > can > renounce their US citizenship. One way to do it is go to a > consulate, and > formally declare that. But, if someone joins another army that is > fighting > the US overseas, then there is some indication that this also can be > considered renouncing one's citizenship. > > But, one cannot arrest a US citizen in the US, and declare them an > enemy > combatant, without judges being involved very quickly. Bush has > been > somewhat careful about what he does. In a real sense, this is the > result of > the effectiveness of the checks and balances. > >> > Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that >> > his >> > re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished >> > American >> > values. >> >> Do you not think that protection of liberty has been eroded under >> Bush 43? Or, at least, badly disrespected? > > I think he has a WWF (World Wrestling Federation) viewpoint of the > world. > There are the good guys and the bad guys. No, he's better than many > who > hold this because he believes that the average person in Iraq, > Africa, etc. > are part of the "freedom loving people of the world threatened by > the > enemies of freedom." But, it does mean that he thinks it's OK and > often > necessary to use harsh measures on the bad guys...and that doing so > doesn't > hurt liberty at all. > > I differ with him significantly on this. Yet, given the fact that > 9-11 was > the worst foreign attack on US states since y'all did it back in > 1812 > :-)....I was actually pleased with how moderate the reaction was, > compared > to past reactions with less justification. So, I'm not liable to > fear the > New Gestapo is just around the corner. > > Also, you have to remember, I've heard all the claims about Amerika > 30-40 > years ago. :-) > I think this is an example of what Charlie is talking about when he describes "erosion": ******************************************************* http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09302006.html The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants." Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate. Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens. The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it. Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents. In 1798, the Federalist-led Congress, capitalizing on the fear of war, passed the four Alien and Sedition Acts to stifle dissent against the Federalist Party's political agenda. The Naturalization Act extended the time necessary for immigrants to reside in the U.S. because most immigrants sympathized with the Republicans. The Alien Enemies Act provided for the arrest, detention and deportation of male citizens of any foreign nation at war with the United States. Many of the 25,000 French citizens living in the U.S. could have been expelled had France and America gone to war, but this law was never used. The Alien Friends Act authorized the deportation of any non-citizen suspected of endangering the security of the U.S. government; the law lasted only two years and no one was deported under it. The Sedition Act provided criminal penalties for any person who wrote, printed, published, or spoke anything "false, scandalous and malicious" with the intent to hold the government in "contempt or disrepute." The Federalists argued it was necessary to suppress criticism of the government in time of war. The Republicans objected that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment, which had become part of the Constitution seven years earlier. Employed exclusively against Republicans, the Sedition Act was used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized President John Adams. Subsequent examples of laws passed and actions taken as a result of fear-mongering during periods of xenophobia are the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Red Scare following World War I, the forcible internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (the Smith Act). During the McCarthy period of the 1950s, in an effort to eradicate the perceived threat of communism, the government engaged in widespread illegal surveillance to threaten and silence anyone who had an unorthodox political viewpoint. Many people were jailed, blacklisted and lost their jobs. Thousands of lives were shattered as the FBI engaged in "red-baiting." One month after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft rushed the U.S.A. Patriot Act through a timid Congress. The Patriot Act created a crime of domestic terrorism aimed at political activists who protest government policies, and set forth an ideological test for entry into the United States. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the internment of Japanese and Japanese-American citizens in Korematsu v. United States. Justice Robert Jackson warned in his dissent that the ruling would "lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need." That day has come with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It provides the basis for the President to round-up both aliens and U.S. citizens he determines have given material support to terrorists. Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables. In his 1928 dissent in Olmstead v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis cautioned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Seventy-three years later, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, speaking for a zealous President, warned Americans "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." We can expect Bush to continue to exploit 9/11 to strip us of more of our liberties. Our constitutional right to dissent is in serious jeopardy. Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning should give us pause: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." ************************************************** And just so one can consider the source: *** Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published in 2007 by PoliPointPress. *** For what its worth: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm Molly Ivans http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/150254 SEN. PATRICK LEAHY xponent Patriot Games Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
