[Winona Online Democracy]
"The problem with defending human liberty is that one frequently finds
onesself defending scoundrels, for it is against scoundrels that oppression
is first directed, and it must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be
stopped anywhere."
--H.L. Mencken
Thank you, Chris, for providing an example of the mindset I was referring
to--a refusal to even question the curtailing of Americans' civil rights by
our government simply because the government claims its intentions are
benevolent and its actions necessary. I believe I've cited the words of
William Pitt, a 19th-century legislator in West Virginia, before, but I find
them once again relevant:
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It
is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves."
Yes, there are terrorists that want to kill you and me, but that doesn't
change the fact that handing our civil rights over to John Ashcroft on his
say-so is a bad idea.
In an effort to most effectively represent the totalitarian mindset, note
that Mr. Nelson has astutely included the key component of emphatic
assertion of belief replacing proof based on evidence. This mindset feels
no need to point how one knows that the government is not acting
malevolently, preferring to subsitute exclamations like "President Bush is
violating the 5th and 6th Amendments? I don't think so!" (TYPING IN CAPS
HELPS TO ACCENTUATE THESE EMPHATIC DECLARATIONS!) then attempt to divert
attention to some bogeyman, following which the individual questioning the
government is accused of threatening the rights of crime victims by
demanding that suspects be afforded the right to a fair inquiry into their
innocence or guilt before they are punished. (Feminism, probably the second
most prevalent totalitarian ideology in America after militarism, is very
fond of this last tactic. I participated in a group discussion on "Rape
Culture" held by a campus feminist group, and one of the major assertions
made by several idividuals present was that American courts discriminate
against rape victims, their abuses including forcing a victim to testify
while in the same room as her assailant. My response that facing one's
accuser is a Constitutional right was met with the Icy Glare of Death by
most of the rest of the persons in attendance.)
Thank you, Chris.
I'd like to address the falsehood which has prodigiously spread and
saturated American culture that civil libertarianism is about extending
rights and privileges to criminals. This is completely untrue, or is at
least untrue of myself and of most of the other self-styled libertarians
I've ever met. The 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments are not about giving
anything to criminals; they prescribe the rights to be afforded someone who
is ACCUSED of a crime, operating on the famous American judicial principle
that no one shall be denied any rights unless and until they have been
proven to be a criminal.
I understand this fact contradicts a view prevalent in American popular
culture that a person's getting arrested consitutes proof that they have
done something wrong. Certainly, what we are taught by television programs
like "NYPD Blue" and similarly-themed movies is that police have an
omniscience that allows them to only arrest people guilty of wrongdoing, and
that when these known-to-be-guilty "suspects" claim innocence, they are
simply lying or trying to "get off." Anyone, particularly an attorney, who
stands up for the rights of the accused is just trying to "get them off" and
inhibit the aministration of just punishment upon those whom we can assume
deserve it. It follows therefore, that since anyone who is arrested and
claims innocence is a lying criminal, it's perfectly acceptable to "rough
them up" a little bit to extract information. The spread of such attitudes
makes sense when one considers that media sources that exert a considerable
influence on popular culture are largely controlled by large business
conglomerates, and that the commercial sector has an understanding with the
government.
I suppose I can't speak for everyone else, but the reason I stand up for due
process and the Consitutional rights of criminal suspects is that someday I
might find myself accused of a crime that I did not commit, and in that
circumstance I would consider it very important that the government go to
all lengths to determine whether I was guilty before they imposed a penalty
on me. Support for upholding the 5th and 6th Amendments does not stem from
a belief that criminals should be protected from the consequences of their
actions, but rather from knowledge of the fallibility of human government,
which was the basis for the enumeration of rights in the Constitution in the
first place. The idea that someone can somehow not deserve due process is a
non-sequitur; due process is the means by which we assess who does or does
not deserve to be deprived of any rights. In my opinion, impeachment or an
equivalent process should be pursued for any government official who
espouses the view that being accused of a severe crime ought to deprive
someone of their right to a fair and open trial, because to do so violates
the Constitution, which government officials swear to uphold. Anyone with
me?
Perhaps I'm alone, but I don't think Americans should be taking the assault
on our rights by Ashcroft and Co. lying down, and I certainly don't think we
should be taking their word for it that these are temporary measures or that
there is some line which they will not cross in their effort to strip us of
our privacy, due process, and freedom of speech. ("...if you report [the
news] in its entirety, that could raise concerns."--Ari Fleischer, White
House Press Secretary) The replacement of civilian courts by a secret
system of military trials able to impose the death penalty that answers
solely to George Bush and is targeted specifically at foreigners ought to at
least pique our interest.
Please excuse one nitpick on my part--the phrase is "martial law" meaning
"law such as would be in effect during war" not "Marshall law," Marshall
being the first name of a friend of mine and in some cases a military rank,
but not an adjective applicable to the concept under discussion. Sorry; I
couldn't resist.
>From: "Chris Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: "onlinedemocracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Winona] Our Civil Rights
>Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:50:46 -0600
>
>
>[Winona Online Democracy]
>
>Ya! I also feel sooooo bad for the mass-murdering thugs that are the
>henchmen for Osama and his screwed up idea of religion even though they are
>responsible for the killing of 4,000+ innocent people. What about the
>people that died that day? Didn't they have any rights?
>
>One step short of Marshall Law? I don't think so! President Bush
>violating
>the 5th and 6th Amendments? I don't think so! We are talking about
>TERRORISTS THAT WANT TO KILL YOU AND ME. We aren't talking about a
>shoplifter.
>
>It is time people start standing up for the RIGHTS of VICTIMS and never
>forget all of the families (including children and unborn children that
>will
>never meet their father) that have been forever changed for the worse
>because of a few nuts . Ya, I feel soooo bad for terrorists and Osama.
>
>Chris Nelson
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [Winona] Our Civil Rights
>
>
> >
> > [Winona Online Democracy]
> >
> > I couldn't agree more with your concerns or those expressed by Mr.
>Thompson.
> > As an attorney, it scares the heck out of me that the government is now
>putting restrictions on the attorney/client privilege and allow them to
>listen to what have to date been privileged conversation. This idea flies
>directly in the face of the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution.
>It is clear that attacking-President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft (sp) have no
>respect for this document.
> > As for the military tribunal idea, I think it is another effort by this
>administration to use the tragedy of September 11th to further erode our
>Civil Rights as citizens of this once-great nation.
> > As I understand this executive order (signed by a President who was not
>elected to anything higher than a figure-head governor of a Southern state)
>he, or any future President, can make the decision unilaterally who is or
>is
>not a terrorist and can be "tried" by a military tribunal.
> > Further, there is apparently no end-date for this order so it could
>conceivable be in effect long after this illegal war against terrorists has
>ended. It is one step short of declaring Marshall law and I cannot believe
>that the citizens of this nation are not up in arms about this usurpation
>of
>our basic Constitutional rights!
> >
> > Dean Lanz
> > Attorney-at-Law
> > ---------------
> > This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
> > Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
>unsubscribe
> > All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name.
> > Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list.
> > Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>---------------
>This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe
>All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name.
>Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list.
>Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe
All messages sent to the list must be signed with your actual name.
Posting of commercial soliticitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems or questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
