Leftists are good for something
Tom writes about the the Padilla case and quotes this article:
But Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. said he believed the power to designate a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant rested with Congress, rather than the president.
Giving such power to the executive branch with only limited review by the courts, he said, would be “a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and … unprecedented in civilized society.”
Two points of contention:
Congress doesn’t have the power either. Everyone should have the right to a trial. Period. This detention is an abysmal afront to our civil liberties. If the administration has a case, it needs to make it. Otherwise, it could be me or you in South Carolina.
Tom states:
This administration has absolutely the worst civil rights record since the days of Japanese internment.
I disagree. The Clinton adminstration was very likely the worst. My reasoning is detailed in this post by Jay Caruso. There is a minor level of understanding afforded to Bush because the nation was attacked. This understanding does not lead to justification by any means. It’s one thing to do something in the name of security and another to do it just to expand government. Both are inexcusable but the reasoning behind them is worth consideration.
Matthew Stinson wrote:
No American president . . . has done so much damage to constitutional liberties as Bill Clinton.”
There is much truth to that. Or, as I am fond of saying, at least Bush hasn’t set anyone on fire.
My criticism of Clinton is not meant to excuse the behavior of the Bush administration. They are wrong and everyone (conservatives included) should be very wary of this issue.
And this is why we need liberals, to monitor these abuses. Now, if they could just get taxes, big government, nannyism, and gun control right.
November 17th, 2003 at 7:58 pm
I disagree. The Clinton adminstration was very likely the worst.
Bullshit, Uncle. Not to excuse the record of the Clinton administration, which wasn’t great, but nothing they did comes even remotely close to holding US citizens indefinitely, without charge, and without access to counsel. What can the Clinton administration possibly have done that was worse than that?
Innocent until proven guilty is one of the very foundations of our liberty, and Bush 43/Ashcroft have pulled down their pants and defecated on the idea. Nothing Clinton did even comes close to that kind of egregious violation, or even to the USA PATRIOT act, for that matter.
For you to say Clinton’s civil rights record was bad, I can accept that and even agree to an extent.
For you to say that it was worse than Bush 43’s record is probably the biggest load of tripe I’ve ever heard you utter.
With all due respect, of course. 😉
November 17th, 2003 at 10:05 pm
You’ve obviously missed the point about intentions, which makes the motivation slightly less odious in the case of bush2.
November 17th, 2003 at 10:15 pm
Oh, and i linked to the stuff he did.
November 18th, 2003 at 12:58 am
I don’t understand the logic of this. Say, for purposes of discussion, that Clinton took away X civil liberties. Then Bush comes in, maintains Clinton’s X civil liberties rollbacks, and adds even more. How is it that Clinton is worse?
November 18th, 2003 at 9:49 am
Good point.
November 18th, 2003 at 10:10 am
This administration has absolutely the worst civil rights record since the days of Japanese internment.
Glad that we are sticking to post-1860’s presidents.
As I am fully against holding US accused criminals without charges or representation, holding an enemy combatant should be a Commander-in-Chief power, IMHO, tempered by laws passed by the Congress.
Congressional powers:
Article I, Section 8;
Clause 1 . . .to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence . .
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Now, this brings us to what laws the Congress has made for the Executive to use and enforce:
The UCMJ (power granted by Clause 4 above);
Now, within that there are provisions for dealing with civilians in military courts and IT IS NOTHING NEW!
Better article and sources here and it includes this helpful paper.
November 18th, 2003 at 10:42 am
Thanks for the link Guy.
November 18th, 2003 at 11:23 am
You’ve obviously missed the point about intentions
No, I didn’t miss that. I dismissed it. Are you honestly arguing that Waco wouldn’t be quite as bad if the DOJ “meant well?” Give me a break. Ashcroft should be held to no different standard.
And Brian makes an excellent point.
November 18th, 2003 at 11:29 am
no, i’m stating intentions play a role. But, the road to hell is paved with them. Or so they say.
November 18th, 2003 at 11:37 am
I may be missing what’s meant here by “intentions” as well, but weren’t some of Clinton’s proposals intended as a response to terrorism as well (Oklahoma City)? We had a domestic attack, and the executive’s reponse was to give more power to federal investigators. Six years later we had an even bigger attack, and the executive’s reponse was to give even more power to the government.
I think there’s a similar pattern that some people seem to want to ignore in an effort to score ideological points. What we should really be doing is examining the underlying laws to see if they are really necessary and narrowly tailored to fight terrorism.
One other point: it’s important to qualify this as post-WWII presidents because liberties were taken away several times before that (Civil War, WWI, 1800, etc.)
I
November 18th, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Guy:
As I am fully against holding US accused criminals without charges or representation, holding an enemy combatant should be a Commander-in-Chief power, IMHO, tempered by laws passed by the Congress.
That position seems inconsistent; you can’t be “fully against” holding people without charges or representation while simultaneously arguing that the Commander-in-Chief has the power to do just that. I must be missing something somewhere.
In my not-so-humble opinion, such a power, if given to the president, must be at a minimum subject to prompt judicial review, on a case-by-case basis. If you can’t convince a judge that you should rightfully be holding someone, you ought not to be holding them. Even there, I’m uncomfortable with the lack of representation and lack of appeals.
November 18th, 2003 at 4:25 pm
Brian A.:
I’ve probably said this before, but let me repeat myself: you rule.
November 19th, 2003 at 10:40 am
tgirsch,
I have noticed your clueless comment even though I promised not to read your stupidity any more. So, in the intrest of clarity, let me just say that THERE IS NOT ANYTHING INCONSISTANT IN MY STATEMENTS FOR PEOPLE WITH A FUNCTIONING F****** BRAIN!
What kind fo retard can not grasp that criminal law is a different set of laws from military law, BUT THEY ARE BOTH LAW!
JFC, idiots like that relly need to spend some time in the civil court system and see that one can be both subject criminal laws and civil laws AT THE SAME TIME EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT CHARGED WITH BOTH.
Also, perhaps I should point out that just because you are charged in a military tribunal you are not necessarily free of prosicution from the federal criminal system, nor from the State criminal systems, as any Business Major should remember from basic Business Law class.
November 19th, 2003 at 11:15 am
Whoa! Language warning. This is a family show (well, no it’s not but keep it civil).
November 19th, 2003 at 11:28 am
SU,
Yea, I get a lot of flack for my spelling 🙁
November 19th, 2003 at 12:35 pm
Guy:
Way to not answer the question. The president either has the right to order citizens held indefinitely, or he does not. About the only way your statement wasn’t inconsistent is if you were saying that you think the president does have the power but should not have it. But that’s certainly not what it sounded like. Apologies if that’s what you were trying to say. It sounded like you were saying that he should have that power.
Apart from that, I stand by everything I said. Such detentions should be at least subject to judicial review. If the leader of a country can decide to detain people with no check or balance, that’s not freedom, that’s fascism.
And by the way, I wasn’t aware that civilians were subject to military law. I thought military law applied to the military. Silly me.
November 19th, 2003 at 1:41 pm
tgirsch,
Why I bother responding to you I do not know, but this is my final last response to your screwed up nonsense.
Scroll up, check the post where I added helpful links and everything. The President has power, through Congressional action and his Constitutional power as Commander and Chief to try people through military tribunals.
The executive branch ALSO has a set of much more restricted powers to bring to the Judicial branch for trial.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Bye.
November 19th, 2003 at 11:56 pm
The President has power, through Congressional action and his Constitutional power as Commander and Chief to try people through military tribunals.
The executive branch ALSO has a set of much more restricted powers to bring to the Judicial branch for trial.
If true, this frankly sucks, and it means that your liberty is an illusion. It vests way too much power in the whims of one man to take your freedoms away for no better reason than his say-so. And you still haven’t made clear whether you think this power is appropriate. Out with it, man.
Fortunately, if the judge quoted in the story Uncle linked (that started this whole debate) is to indicative of what’s to come, this “power” won’t last very long.
November 20th, 2003 at 1:30 pm
Guy:
Oh, and all your “helpful links and everything” conveniently ignore Amendments V and VI, excerpted thusly:
Emphasis added to V, and not needed for VI, since the whole thing applies.
Yes, I fully understand that the reason Bush has resorted to military tribunals is so that it’s not a crimial prosecution, and so he can conveniently bypass all those constitutional protections. But if he indeed has the power to move a defended out of criminal justice and into military justice without any justification, or any check or balance, then those constitutional protections are essentially voided for everyone.
Which was my original point. What we’re seeing here is utter contempt for the constitution by this administration.
November 20th, 2003 at 1:31 pm
My spacing got hosed. Apologies.
November 20th, 2003 at 1:32 pm
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Unless you have weed, large amounts of cash, or a legally owned gun.
November 20th, 2003 at 2:31 pm
With the possible exception of the gun thing, the laws were passed via due process.