Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 91

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How are you going to prove you're an American citizen when you don't have access to a habeas proceeding?

How are they going to detain me without anyone knowing it? Someone will bring a habeas motion on my behalf. And if you say they can detain me and not tell anyone in the United States, well that would be illegal. And the government could do illegal things before 9-11.

The question is now what can they do to me legally that they couldn't do before?

Shape Shifter · 09-14-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
How are they going to detain me without anyone knowing it? Someone will bring a habeas motion on my behalf. And if you say they can detain me and not tell anyone in the United States, well that would be illegal. And the government could do illegal things before 9-11.

The question is now what can they do to me legally that they couldn't do before?

What do you mean they can't do that to you legally. You're not a U.S. Citizen.

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What do you mean they can't do that to you legally. You're not a U.S. Citizen.

1) Why was this any different before the Bush Administration?

2) I am a US citizen, and if I tell them I am one then they have to check it out. If I tell them I am a US citizen and they don't check it out and treat me like I am not a citizen, they are breaking the law.

Shape Shifter · 09-14-2006, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Why was this any different before the Bush Administration?

You're missing Ty's point.

Quote:

2) I am a US citizen, and if I tell them I am one then they have to check it out. If I tell them I am a US citizen and they don't check it out and treat me like I am not a citizen, they are breaking the law.

Sure, sure, Abdul. Whatever you say. Would you like some water?

Spanky · 09-14-2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What do you mean they can't do that to you legally. You're not a U.S. Citizen.

Have you completely forgot about espionage during the Cold War? Our agents routinely killed Soviet agents in other countrys. In addition, we detained soviet agents, or soviet block agents, at many locations outside the US and these guys had absolutely no rights.

In addition, US citizens that became agents of the Soviet Bloc, outside the United States, were killed by the US government. I believe such agents were also detained outside the US without these people having any access to the US legal system. However, I can't remember a specific example of that.

Are you saying things have gotten worse since the Cold War?

Spanky · 09-15-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You're missing Ty's point.

Maybe I am. I thought he stated that because of fear, me and other conservatives are wiling to give up rights to fight this war on terror. I want to know what rights I have given up since the war on terror commenced.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sure, sure, Abdul. Whatever you say. Would you like some water?

As I said - that would not be legal. And the US government can act illegally at any time - war on terror or no war on terror.. Nothing has changed since the war on terror to make this hypo any different.

ltl/fb · 09-15-2006, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said - that would not be legal. And the US government can act illegally at any time - war on terror or no war on terror.. Nothing has changed since the war on terror to make this hypo any different.

With the insistence on secrecy and denial of visiting rights, etc., they make it possible that no one can find out enough to know whether what they are doing is illegal. And they could refuse to look into it, and if it ever came out that you were a US citizen, they'd have plausible deniability that they KNEW you were a US citizen. They might even honestly believe you aren't a US citizen, but without checking it out, they could get up and have some state of the union address where they say no one they are holding is a US citizen, and it wouldn't be a lie.

Like the uranium thing.

Duh.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2006, 12:13 AM

Spanky, I gather you think that the executive branch should have the power to seize and hold a foreign national in its sole discretion, and that someone so seized and held should have no recourse to the courts. Whatever their situation, they just have to lump it and wait for the executive branch to decide to free them.

If so, I gather that you think that if the executive branch also could -- in its sole discretion -- decide to torture foreign nationals, and that if it does decide to do so, the victims have absolutely no recourse to U.S. courts. True?

I'm not asking you whether you think it's wise to emprison or torture people, innocent or not. My question is solely about whether you think the judicial branch of the federal government has any role to play if the executive branch decides to do these things.

Spanky · 09-15-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
With the insistence on secrecy and denial of visiting rights, etc., they make it possible that no one can find out enough to know whether what they are doing is illegal. And they could refuse to look into it, and if it ever came out that you were a US citizen, they'd have plausible deniability that they KNEW you were a US citizen. They might even honestly believe you aren't a US citizen, but without checking it out, they could get up and have some state of the union address where they say no one they are holding is a US citizen, and it wouldn't be a lie.

Like the uranium thing.

Duh.

And they couldn't do this before the Bush administration?

Spanky · 09-15-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, I gather you think that the executive branch should have the power to seize and hold a foreign national in its sole discretion, and that someone so seized and held should have no recourse to the courts. Whatever their situation, they just have to lump it and wait for the executive branch to decide to free them.

If they were seized outside the United States. Yes. The only issue would be if we had a treaty with the country of which they were a national. If we had such a treaty then our government would have to respect that treaty.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If so, I gather that you think that if the executive branch also could -- in its sole discretion -- decide to torture foreign nationals, and that if it does decide to do so, the victims have absolutely no recourse to U.S. courts. True?

Yes - unless congress passed a law prohibiting such torture.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not asking you whether you think it's wise to emprison or torture people, innocent or not. My question is solely about whether you think the judicial branch of the federal government has any role to play if the executive branch decides to do these things.

The only role it would have to play is to make sure that the United States honors it treaties. But beyond that - no.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes - unless congress passed a law prohibiting such torture.

But do you think Congress should pass such a law?

Spanky · 09-15-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But do you think Congress should pass such a law?

I don't know. I used to think we should never use torture under any circumstances. That we should only demand name rank and serial number. But now I am not so sure. I definitely think there should be limits, but some of the tactics that use fear but don't actually cause permanent physical damage, should be allowed. I definitely think there should be some limits but I am not sure as to what they should be.

Spanky · 09-15-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Reagan's vision of American strength has been replaced by a conservatism so afraid of the world that it is willing to trade away the liberties that make this country great for a promise -- however hollow -- of more safety. Why are you all so afraid? Have some courage to stand up for what makes this country great.

Is anyone going to tell me what liberties me and other conservatives have given up since the war on terror commenced?

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't know. I used to think we should never use torture under any circumstances. That we should only demand name rank and serial number. But now I am not so sure. I definitely think there should be limits, but some of the tactics that use fear but don't actually cause permanent physical damage, should be allowed. I definitely think there should be some limits but I am not sure as to what they should be.

I'm just talking about access to the courts. Should people who are detained or tortured by our government have any ability to go to our courts to try to seek relief?

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-15-2006, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Is anyone going to tell me what liberties me and other conservatives have given up since the war on terror commenced?

I'll just take one example. FISA makes it criminal for the government to engage in wiretapping without a warrant. President Bush asserts the constitutional authority to ignore the plain terms of that law. We thought we had the statutory right to be free of such wiretapping -- turns out no.

Reagan was also talking about our self-respect. When we torture people, we lose our self-respect, even if -- especially if -- we say that we will only torture foreigners.