The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

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

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?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's interesting is that in the four years subsequent, Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war.

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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

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

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

[Hank Chinaski]

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

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

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What's interesting is that in the four years subsequent, Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war.

they don't anymore. but didn't they vote for something in Iraq? Afghanistan?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People with an Afghan stamp on their passport can be held indefinately.

Perhaps I should clarify. I meant your own - personal - rights and liberties.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People with an Afghan stamp on their passport can be held indefinately.

Apparently so.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Perhaps I should clarify. I meant your own - personal - rights and liberties.

in your hypo do I have an Afghan stamp?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People with an Afghan stamp on their passport can be held indefinately.

So every aid worker and government contractor involved in relief and rebuilding efforts surrenders their civil rights? My, no good deed does go unpunished.


Or is it just the people whom we freed from tyranny you wish to punish?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in your hypo do I have an Afghan stamp?

Perhaps not, but you do have pretty ones from Pakistan, Spain, France and the House of Saud. Does that change your answer, or would you like to modify Hank's Handy Rule of Thumb for Civil Liberties?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

It is a real and difficult dillemma. I also agree that letting lots of these people back on the street is not an attractive option.

But I think it is more than "nice" _if_ the laws catch up. It is vital that the laws catch up, because we are a nation of laws. Therefore, it is vital that the administration go through the process of a public debate and appropriate legislation to the extent they think we need to change the way we do things.

I think they also need to not play games with the legal challenges to try to avoid Court rulings on their policies -- which they have done with Padilla, and did with Hamdi. Good God -- when a man like Luttig slams the administration for playing games you know there is a problem.

One of the bottom lines, Hank -- is that there is _always_ a backlash and a reversal of policies over time. The backlash is made harsher when the G is seen as being unduly secretive, abusive and/or authoritarian. So, even those who agree with the policy should see that it is not in the best interests of the country -- long-term, for the G to handle it that way.

You can see what may be the beginnings of it now, when the GOP has a 55-45 Senate advantage, but there are enough Republican defections to defeat efforts to permanently extend the Patriot Act, the President is forced to accede to a ban on torture, at least three GOP Senators have called for hearings on the wiretapping program, and other Presidential priorities (ANWR and/or budget cuts) either go down to defeat or require Cheney to break a tie.

If the backlash from Watergate and the abuses under Nixon led to the Church commission and a backlash which resulted in a long-term degradation of our intelligence capabilities, it seems to me that we would want to avoid similar abuses to avoid a similar backlash this time around.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick question everyone: 9/11- act of war or real bad crime?

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

An unfair question to ask a board of lawyers, since "war" is a legal term of art.

As a legal mattter -- it is a crime. As a practical matter, it is both.

S_A_M

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in your hypo do I have an Afghan stamp?

Let's say you do, but the government hasn't found out yet.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

That is a bit harsh, and not entirely fair.

He is more willing than you are to trade some freedom for some security, and would draw the line differently than you. I'd probably draw it in a third location. That doesn't mean any of us hate America, or freedom, or Mom, or apple pie.

One problem, though is that once you trade some freedom, its damn tough to get it back.

S_A_M