No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

OK, so they're taking her land to raise money to stop terrorism. Or to build a training center for Navy Seals. Or a billboard promoting national security. Now it's related to terrorism, so it's OK?

Are you working off some sort of principle about which rights are inalienable, etc., or are you just saying that as far as you're concerned, anything goes when it comes to national security?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Since she's not a citizen, can they tap all her phones? Which are also your phones? Without a warrant?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

You are really reaching here Ty. This is ridiculous. If you disagree with me on this does that mean that every person on this planet should have the same rights as a US citizen as far as the US government is concerned? Of course not. I didn't go to that absurd extreme because it does not ad to the conversation at all.

I made sure, because of your tendency to take everything to its extreme, that I said that I did not think foreign nationals should not have any rights whatsoever.

When it comes to national security I don't think foreign nationals ought to have their property confiscated. Nor do I think that they should have their organs removed and given to law enforcement personnel.

What I do think is that their rights as a criminal defendent are not the same as a US citizen.

US Citizens need rights because we need to guard against the government turning into a tyranical dictatorship. That problem doesn't exist with non-US citizens. In this country serial killers get rights regardless of its fairness. We err on the side of protecting people rights over justice because of our fear if we don't, the government might start abusing the rights of its citizens. We let people that we are almost sure are guilty, and will probably commit the same crime again, go free because of desire not to let our government start abusing the rights of our citizens. Since foreigners are not citizens, then that is not a problem. If the serial killer happens to be a foreigner then the full rights don't apply.

What is at issue with foreigners is relations with other countries and concepts of basic fairness. If we want our citizens treated a certain way by other countrys then we better reciprocate. But otherwise we should balance what is fair with national security.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Yes. If I am concerned about this stuff I can always apply to make her a citizen. If we are married, and she can't become a citizen after thirty years then there is definitely something wrong with her anyway.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

No, but I think that legal permanent residents ought to be treated like citizens, except that they don't vote.

I suspected as much, but I was inviting you to draw a line, on the thought that it might reveal some principle at work.

The rights that citizens have are not a luxury that we reserve to ourselves to reward ourselves for being American. They reflect the way that society ought to work. I'm not understanding a reason why you think a foreigner who lives here, who pays taxes, who is part of the community -- why that person shouldn't enjoy the same fundamental rights that the rest of us enjoy.

They need rights because otherwise they wouldn't have rights? That's just a little circular.

No, we do it because it's the right thing to do.

Reread the Declaration of Independence. It doesn't say, we hold this truth to be self-evident: that giving us certain rights will maximize efficiency and free markets.

And 'cuz freedom is good in and of itself.

Unless you happen to think that freedom is a good thing.

I notice that you're ducking my questions about property rights. The government prosecutes criminals to make the rest of us better off. It could also take people's property to make the rest of us better off. If you think foreigners' interests really don't count, why not just seize their property?


Why is national security any different from other good things the government could do? If the government seized the property of Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black (let's just pretend they're both foreigners still), it could spend that money on things that would save lives -- like fighting terrorists in Iraq. Why are you willing to sacrifice the life and liberty of foreigners in the name of national defense, but not their property?

Padilla
 

The Left is so disconnected from the real world, it's like a cartoon.

While the Dems are singing and handwringing over putting panties on terrorists head, John Q. Public yawns and wonders why we aren't sticking a hot poker up his anus and electrocuting his balls.

While the Dems are blustering and filibustering over the renewal of the Patriot Act, John Q. Public wants to know why Democrats so hate the country that they would prefer another terrorist attack than let the GOP do their job.

While the Dems are leaking and shrieking about "secret" foreign detention cells, John Q. Public wonders why we aren't summarily executing these cretins to begin with.

And now, while the Dems are screeching and threatening impeaching over perfectly legal and highly precedented wiretaps of potential terrorists, John Q. Public wonders why Democrats are more concerned about the privacy of murderers than of allowing the government to gather important preventive intelligence.

If you Demwits keep up this pace of distancing yourselves from public opinion, the Greens may overtake you in 2008.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

If we capture a Talibani in Afghanistan, why shouldn't we give him the same rights as a US citizen. Does every person we capture in war deserve the right to talk to a lawyer, a speedy trial and being convicted beyond a reasaonable doubt by his piers before we can incarcerate him? No. Following your logic if we don't give them all the rights a US citizen has then we might as well just use them in any way we can to improve the life of US citizens. So if we don't give them the full right of US citizens then logically we should enslave them? If I don't think they should have the same rights as US citizens that doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that we should dispose of them any way we please. In a similar vein, if you think they should have more rights than I want to grant them I can't conclude that you believe that every non-citizen caught in battle should get a speedy jury trial, get a lawyer to represent them, and if there is a screw up at trial, he should be let go to rejoin his army to fight us. However, following your absurd take it to the extreme logic, I should conclude that.


If a private eye goes through your trash and discovers a bloody knife, it can be used against you in a court of law. If the government comes across it they can't use it. Why? Because of our fear of government.

If I detain you, and ask you questions without letting you know your rights anything you say can be used against you. Not the same with Cops. Why? Because of our fear of government.

Our system puts rights above truth and justice because of our fear of government.

In addition, freedom and rights are not synonymous.

I never said foreigners interests never count. And I said that concepts of fairness and justice should come into play. Sacrificing someone for the collective doesn't seem very fair to me. But if you come into this country and try and harm it don't expect to have the protections that the our government provides its own citizens. The responsiblity of our government is to protect our citizens and to protect and respect our rights. Our government has no obligation to protect non-citizens nor does it have an obligation to protect their rights. We simply do such things out of our sense of fairplay and justice.



I am not willing to sacrifice their life and liberty for no reason. If the evidence shows that they are guilty, or show a strong likliehood they are guilty then we take their life or liberty. But if there is strong evidence to show they are guilty, do we not use such evidence if it was obtained through a nonwarranted wire tap - no. Do we offer them a jury trial with voi dire etc. no. Do we offer them the right against self incrimination - no. We search for the truth and go where the truth leads us.

Padilla
 

Here is reality, Hank: ask an Irish catholic whether those laws helped or hurt the UK in the long run, whether the modicum of additional anti-terrorist intelligence or the ability to hold someone a little longer was worth sending the message to a percentage of the population that they just didn't fucking matter, and they were going to be jailed regardless of guilt or innocence.

The message the English had for the Northern Irish Catholics was and is perfectly clear: they are subhumans who don't deserve basic human rights. They will be fucked with and fucked over because, well, they're not English after all. Just dirty Micks.

The Irish troubles went from a short-term flareup to a thirty year clusterfuck because of the exact same tactics you are now advocating.

So take your exigent circumstances and shove them.

Padilla
 

I am pretty sure that Southern Gentlement is a liberal making conservative arguments to show how absurd they are. I thought you were the same but now I am not so sure. Either way, you are not doing a good job. If you think you are making the conservative argument, you are not very persuasive. If you are trying to show how absurd the conservative arguments are, you are not doing that well either.

Senility before turning 40?
 

I couldn't find my wallet for twenty four hours. Started to freak out. I just found it in my sock drawer. The crazy thing is I don't even smoke crack. My friend said that one time he couldn't find his wallet and it turned up in his refrigerator. However, in his defense, he smoked a lot of pot in college.

Padilla
 

From my perspective, as an American protestant, the cause of the whole problem was that the British held onto part of Ireland. They should have just let the whole thing go. If the Northern Irish thought they were so British, they could have returned to the island of Britain. However,if you are going to stay in Ireland, you are going to be part of Ireland. That is where your problem started. The stuff you are talking about just added fuel to the fire. I am just saying.

Senility before turning 40?
 

I don't think I've seen those two phrases connected before in that way.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

I found this post to be quite encouraging.

Not the part about you getting blamed, but the other stuff.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Nastier for the New Year?

Padilla
 

Ms. Coulter seems to appear whenever discussion has become rational and centrist. Weren't you looking for a rabid conservative to spice things up? Be careful what you wish for.

I do not view the argument being made right now by Bush (directly and through Mr. Cheney) as a conservative/liberal argument, but instead as an argument between advocates of a strong executive and advocates of individual rights.

Mr. Chinaski's hypo is a good example. He is essentially saying that current law is inadequate to address the threat, and thus what is needed is strong governmental authority with discretion to act as they wish, unlimited by the legal system. I do not like this approach at all, and I would suggest that in our system if the laws are inadequate what is needed are new laws. Given that President Bush has a majority in both houses, he should be able to put in place the laws that are necessary to do this right.

However, I also think Mr. Chinaski's hypothetical can be addressed under current law. The Saudis carrying box-cutters may have been conspiring to attempt murder (with a number of counts equal to the individuals on board the airplane, minimum, or the number of people inside the World Trade Center or Pentagon, maximum) or doing any number of other things. Yes, the government will need to show more than just carrying box-cutters. But, with the box-cutter wielders identified and in custody, presumably a case can be built. If it cannot, then, yes, they should go free (though certainly not free in this country given the suspicion - I would expect passports to be revoked).

Internationally, we must abide by the Geneva Convention and by treaties we are a party to; domestically and with respect to US persons wherever they are (IMHO), we need to abide by the constitution. Given how many have fought for those rights over such a protracted period of time, is there anything wrong with that standard? I have not heard the President disavow these standards, though I am waiting to see if the acts that have occurred effectively disregard the standard, which would not be acceptable behavior.

Padilla
 

Have you followed the current Stormont Spy Ring fiasco? Very confusing, but it appears possible that the British may have infiltrated the IRA and used their agents to push the IRA towards the extreme and the violent to isolate them. So effectively the British may have been bombing themselves to help them hold on to the North.

The facts have not yet settled down, and are very confusing, but I am not sure I would use the British as an example of anything until this is sorted out.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

That's pretty much the argument.

But only if the administration honestly thinks, in their unfettered discretion, that it is a good idea.

Look, of course we are fighting a different kind of enemy, and we certainly need to do things differently in many ways than we have been since the mid-1970s. That said, lets have honest and open debates on the issues rather than secret assumptions of power, and (I say) let's hold onto the fundamental principles that made America that "shining city on a hill."

The failures leading to 9/11 were caused by definciencies in policies re intelligence-gathering, a severe lack of human intelligence capability and a refusal by government and industry to take basic protective measures -- not the lack of warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens, the inability to torture prisoners, and/or the inability to hold U.S. and/or foreign citizens in custody indefinitely with no charge and no access to counsel.

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit ironic that I am the one here arguing for limited governmental power and quoting Reagan?

S_A_M

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Well, quoting peggy noonan referring to John Winthrop.

But, yes, it will be held against you for some time to come.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Almost every time the nation has had a major crisis, we have compromised our principles somewhat along the way in the name of victory. Whether it was martial law in Ohio and Indiana during the Civil War, the Palmer Raids during and after WWI, or the Japanese Internment Camps during WWII, we have repeatedly seen whatever government was in power go overboard at these points in time. All of them have turned into national embarassments afterwards. The most justifiable of the bunch was the declaration of martial law (since an invasion was indeed imminent at the time), and we did the latter things even though that had been declared unconstitutional.

So why can't we try to learn a little bit from the past this time?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

People who went to Afghanistan for terror training are bad to have walking around. But they didn't do anything that can probably be proved. As an example, it is not illegal to go to Afghanistan- it is not illegal (not something that puts you in jail at least) to bring a box cutter through security, it is not illegal to take jet aircraft classes, and it is not illegal to buy large quantities of fetrilizer. And we can't profile someone because they are Islamic.

And guess what, most of these guys don't do anything illegal until the airplane has been hijacked or the bomb assembled. Yes Captain it would be nice if we could put together a nice conspiracy case together- but conspiracy to do what? Bring box cutters on a plane? Why prosecute Atta but not my kid?

All I'm saying is that for certain of these people, letting them on the street is not an attractive option. Yes it would be nice if laws caught up, and maybe there are some better laws that could provide help- but right now- today Padilla or whoever else wants to kill thousands of us. That is the dilemma facing people who are holding these guys. It's like capturing an enemy airplane loaded with bombs, questioning the pilot and saying "we have to let him have his plane back because we can't prove he is on the other side."

You all act like that dilemma isn't hard, or real.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

So your solution is....?

If you can't respond with something consistent with Civics 101, you're proposing a Constitutional Amendment to limit the scope of the 5th Amendment. Dr. Spanky, of course, already has his 5th Amendment proposal, to get rid of the Exclusionary Rule, and I'm his second, but let's hear yours, and see if it is something that anyone other than Ms. Coulter will agree with. Without a second, we can't consider the motion.

Padilla
 

My dear, would you like to go out shooting with me some time? I've got this lovely repeater I think you would like.

Padilla
 

You seem to cross the Canadian border a lot. Suppose one of your clients has the surname Mehmet? At what point should Homeland SEcurity grab you at the border and throw you in a Navy brig for a year or two without a hearing or access to counsel while they do a really thorough check of this Mehmet guy?

Padilla
 

wouldn't happen to me. I always buy booze at the duty free so they'd know I'm no fundamentalist.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

The only real question is what gives you the ability to determine the guy is a killer? Under then facts given, you don't know, do you?

So then, how caqn you justify holding him? All you KNOW is that he's an Arab and he had a box cutter.

Padilla
 

Good cover. NSA now knows, though.

Time to take up smoking?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Explain how what you are advocating is different from what we are condemning China for. I personally feel that when declaring someone a "suspected enemy of the State" is enough to lock them away, then it's the State that has become the enemy.

I'm Confused.........
 

That is a good start. Thank you.

You forgot something . . .

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

And all that stuff about how all men are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights was just puff advertising?

If that's the case, then the only argument that you can really make about Iraq is that we went there because it's more convenient for us to have a democratic (well, up to a point) state than it was to have Saddam.

And if your ability to claim certain rights is based solely on an accident of birth, then what real moral basis is there for those rights?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

wonk, I'm putting you down for "crime."

Padilla
 

Raggedy Ann Coulter is and was a Penske sock. Whether it's Penske himself or his favorite stooge posting at this point is irrelevant. The screed is coming from the same source.

Padilla
 

Penske doesn't sock.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

What's interesting is that in the four years subsequent, Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

We're not acting like it isn't a real dilemma. But hard facts make bad law, Hank. The plain simple truth is that either we are a democracy that values human rights and civil liberties or we are not.

The people disagreeing with you have come down on the side of America remaining a free country. You have identified yourself as one who is willing to part with that principle.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Put me down for neither. It was an act of terrorism. Perhaps terrorism needs a new response from the State. But I'm not willing to see the Constitution tucked away in a drawer for when and if it becomes convenient again to pull it out and hang it over the mantle.

To use Slave's favorite Clash quote:

When they kick down your door, how you gonna come?
With your hands in the air or on the trigger of a gun?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Yeah, I'd noticed that too. Funny, innit?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Quick question to you: After 9/11, which rights and liberties do you want to keep? Which ones are you happy to let go ?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

People with an Afghan stamp on their passport can be held indefinately.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

We are missing two things in this discussion:

(1) Mr. Chinaski has not told us his proposal, that is, what he would change, suspend or alter in the Constitution or in our system.

(2) No one else seems to be supporting Mr. Chinaski's position. It seems everyone else here believes in our system of government.

I realize that we all enjoy knocking down straw men on occassion, and even setting them afire when they are on the ground, and Mr Chinaski's posts set him up as a fine straw man. Hank, would you like to put a little flesh and bones in place of the straw and actually tell us what you want to change? Perhaps then someone will have something to agree with.


Edited to Add: I posted too late. We do have a proposal! It looks like a straw man. Who has a match?