tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post113689974147420162..comments2024-03-29T05:31:02.923-04:00Comments on The Y Files: Safety and liberty: libertarians, the Bush administration, and the war on terrorCathy Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-2978069941058855662010-08-06T05:17:43.829-04:002010-08-06T05:17:43.829-04:00In essay writing I tring to open this theme more/ ...In <a href="http://www.bestessayhelp.com/" rel="nofollow">essay writing</a> I tring to open this theme more/ but your position I understanded.Larahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110966549885883954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137263265856569592006-01-14T13:27:00.000-05:002006-01-14T13:27:00.000-05:00Someone (Rev?) brought up "the 14th Amendment's gr...Someone (Rev?) brought up "the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to everyone born in America."<BR/> <BR/>There was a VERY interesting letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on (I believe) December 7, 2005. The author was Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. (Wow...! That's a mouthful!)<BR/> <BR/>Excerpts:<BR/> <BR/>(Note... when all caps are used they're mine so as to emphasize key points.)<BR/> <BR/>The 14th Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens..." <BR/> <BR/>Professor Eastman comments that to treat the last clause as describing merely territorial jurisdiction is to render the clause superfluous. Even temporary visitors (TOURISTS) are subject to U.S. jurisdiction in that sense. The clause must therefore mean something more - AN ALLEGIANCE-OWING JURISDICTION.<BR/> <BR/>Eastman continued...<BR/> <BR/>The debates in THE CONGRESS THAT APPROVED THE CLAUSE, and the UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT FIRST INTERPRETED IT, confirm this understanding. Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland explained during floor debate, for example, that "all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States AND NOT SUBJECT TO SOME FOREIGN POWER - for that no doubt is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us - shall be considered as citizens of the United States." The AUTHOR of the provision, Sen. Jacob Howard, ANNOUNCED that the clause "WILL NOT, OF COURSE, INCLUDE FOREIGNERS."<BR/> <BR/>(Pretty interesting stuff, huh? I'm 43 years old, a well-read layman with regard to constitutional interpretation, and I'd never been exposed to these facts.)<BR/> <BR/>Eastman continued...<BR/> <BR/>The Supreme Court first considered the clause in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1872, UNANIMOUSLY recognizing that the phrase "WAS INTENDED to EXCLUDE from its operation children of...citizens or subjects of foreign States BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES." This view was CONFIRMED in the 1883 case of Elk v. Wilkens. The phrase, according to the Court, meant "not MERELY subject in SOME respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but COMPLETELY subject to their political jurisdiction, AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE." Children of temporary visitors to the United States, particularly those who are here illegally, own primary allegiance to their parent's country, not to the U.S., and are therefore NOT guaranteed citizenship by the terms of the 14th Amendment.<BR/> <BR/>(Wouldn't this have been a great topic of discussion between current Senators and Judge Alito during the hearings?!?!)<BR/> <BR/>Eastman then points out...<BR/> <BR/>CONGRESS retains the power to offer citizenship MORE BROADLY than the Constitution REQUIRES, of course, pursuant to its plenary authority over naturalization. To date, IT HAS NOT DONE SO.<BR/> <BR/>In 1898, the SUPREME COURT (under its own self-defined "authority" - Bill) raised the citizenship floor mandated by the Constitution slightly, to include children of LEGAL, permanent residents who, by virtue of a treaty with the Chinese emperor, were never eligible for citizenship themselves. But to read the holding in Wong Kin Ark as determining that the Constitution also mandates AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP to children of temporary, ILLEGAL immigrants not only presses the Constitution's text beyond the breaking point, but significantly intrudes on Congress' plenary power over naturalization.<BR/> <BR/>Eastman concludes...<BR/> <BR/>More fundamentally, such a view permits illegal immigrants, by THEIR unilateral and ILLEGAL action, to demand membership in a political community supposedly grounded on mutual consent. It permits people such as Yaser Esam Hamdi, who clearly owned his PRIMARY allegiance to a foreign power and who was captured in Afghanistan in armed conflict against the U.S., to lay claim to the protections of citizenship merely because he was born in Louisiana while his father was on a temporary work visa. And it PREVENTS CONGRESS from making the critical policy judgments about the level of sustainable immigration that the CONSTITUTION DELIBERATELY ASSIGNS TO IT, providing instead a strong incentive for illegal immigration that fosters the kind of separatist communities within our midst that have produced mass riots in France (and Australia - Bill).<BR/> <BR/>* Well...??? Interesting, huh? This this thread is about to be consigned to the archives I'm going to email a copy of this post to Cathy with a request that she post it as a new thread.<BR/> <BR/>BILLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137258872618873182006-01-14T12:14:00.000-05:002006-01-14T12:14:00.000-05:00***RECKLESS PARTISANSHIP ALERT***No...! Not *me*!!...***RECKLESS PARTISANSHIP ALERT***<BR/><BR/>No...! Not *me*!!! I'm talking about Rainsborough! (*GRIN*)<BR/><BR/>Example:<BR/><BR/>Rainsborough writes...<BR/><BR/>"...this president believes that the president alone may at his discretion take the country into war."<BR/><BR/>Buzz! "This" president, Rainsborough? You are kidding... right? Perhaps you just "misspoke." (*GRIN*)<BR/><BR/>The problem... as I've been arguing ad nauseum with Revenant... is that ALL presidents apparently believe that they have this innate authority. <BR/><BR/>FURTHERMORE... most Americans... apparently including many, I fear most, judges and legislators are under the same misconception - at least as long as a president isn't invading Canada or bombing Paris.<BR/><BR/>(And with the Paris example... I'm not so sure...) (*SMILE*)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Rainsborough... perhaps it was just a slip on your part, but you hurt "our" case when you politicalize constitutional doctrine along partisan lines.<BR/><BR/>BILLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137177303920942952006-01-13T13:35:00.000-05:002006-01-13T13:35:00.000-05:00To point b, and the Truman example: while the exec...<I>To point b, and the Truman example: while the executive could have played the secret information card in previous wars, it would have been difficult to do. There are public signals that we can all see.</I><BR/><BR/>There are public signals in the war on terrorism that we all can see, too. Not a month goes by without people being blown to bits by Islamic crazies. It isn't like terrorist attacks happen in secret -- indeed, the whole point of them is for people to find out about them.<BR/><BR/><I>You may believe it is ridiculous that a president could simply say "trust me, we know of other terrorists, and we are searching them out," but I don't. Especially since part of the rationale can be that it is only quiet because we continue to foil would-be plots.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, Presidents could pull the exact same stunt in a traditional war -- saying that the enemy was continuing to plot in secret, and that even though there were no visible signs of conflict, trust us, the attacks are on the way. Your concern is not unique to the war on terrorism.<BR/><BR/>And you're also forgetting that it isn't up to the President to decide whether or not a war is over. That is Congress' job.<BR/><BR/><I>In the absence of other information, it is natural for the public to trust what the government tells them.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it isn't. Take a look at the lead-up to the American entry into WW2, for example, when Roosevelt was trying the hard sell on the importance of opposing the Nazis and the overwhelming response of the American people was we shouldn't go to war. People's natural inclination is to believe that the problems they see are real problems and the problems they don't see aren't. "We swear there's a problem, we just can't tell you what or why we know" is not a line people buy from politicians.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137176336250181342006-01-13T13:18:00.000-05:002006-01-13T13:18:00.000-05:00From my perspective, your point of view leads to a...<I>From my perspective, your point of view leads to a king/subject relationship, where the government can basically do what ever it choses unless there is a specific statement banning such activity, rather than a Constitutional government of limited and enumerated powers</I><BR/><BR/>The enumerated powers of government are an entirely separate issue from the rights of American citizens. For example, even if US citizens' right to privacy isn't protected by the Constitution, it would still be unconstitutional for the government to violate that privacy -- or do anything else -- unless it did so in the exercise of one of its allowed powers. But espionage has always been a part of warfare, and warfare is definitely among the enumerated powers of the legislative and executive branches.<BR/><BR/>In any case, a democratic government with no checks on its power at all still isn't equivalent to a king. Kings aren't elected; their subjects can't fire them and replace them with somebody else.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137164473970729572006-01-13T10:01:00.000-05:002006-01-13T10:01:00.000-05:00What matters isn't whether a person has a right, b...<I>What matters isn't whether a person has a right, but whether the Constitution protects it from infringement. For example, many believe that we have the right to do as we wish with our own bodies so long as we do not harm others by our action. We may indeed have that right, but the Constitution doesn't protect it -- which is why laws against drugs and prostitution hold up in court.</I> <BR/><BR/>Thank you for clarifying your position Revenant. <BR/><BR/>From my perspective, your point of view leads to a king/subject relationship, where the government can basically do what ever it choses unless there is a specific statement banning such activity, rather than a Constitutional government of limited and enumerated powers. While your point of view is very pragmatic, considering <I>Kelo vs. New London</I> and the NSA domestic spying, it is not one I agree with.Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614458040158495755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137133161558802562006-01-13T01:19:00.000-05:002006-01-13T01:19:00.000-05:00Is your belief rights are granted the Constitution...<I>Is your belief rights are granted the Constitution?</I><BR/><BR/>Generally speaking, no, although there are places where it does grant rights. Examples include the grand jury requirement for prosecution, the 26th amendment's guarantee of 18 year olds' right to vote, and the 14th amendment grant of citizenship to everyone born in America.<BR/><BR/><I>And if that right is not spelled out than I don't have it? </I><BR/><BR/>What matters isn't whether a person has a right, but whether the Constitution protects it from infringement. For example, many believe that we have the right to do as we wish with our own bodies so long as we do not harm others by our action. We may indeed have that right, but the Constitution doesn't protect it -- which is why laws against drugs and prostitution hold up in court.<BR/><BR/>You may have a natural right to not be eavesdropped on. But it isn't a right the federal government is forbidden from infringing upon.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137127628767039122006-01-12T23:47:00.000-05:002006-01-12T23:47:00.000-05:00That's surprising; your ability to detect the invi...<I>That's surprising; your ability to detect the invisible "right to have private conversations" in the Fourth Amendment would suggest that you're pretty good at spotting Constitutional rights whether they're really there or not. :)</I><BR/><BR/>Just so I'm clear on this Revenant. Is your belief rights are <B>granted</B> the Constitution? And if that right is not spelled out than I don't have it? Because it seems if I take your statement to the logical foundation, than any citizen only has what rights are granted by the Government (in your point of view).Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614458040158495755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137102369206664732006-01-12T16:46:00.000-05:002006-01-12T16:46:00.000-05:00Again, this is with regard to any taking of extra-...<I>Again, this is with regard to any taking of extra-constitutional power by the executive for the purpose (or duration) of a war. I'm arguing that, since we (the public) don't know the enemy, the war can be made indefinite.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it cannot. Suppose that Truman, in 1945, had said "even though Hirohito and the Japanese government have claimed that they surrendered, we have secret information that they're continuing to plan attacks on America". How would that have been any different than the scenario you paint with regard to the war on terrorism? And how long could Truman have kept it up before people caught on?<BR/><BR/>You've been claiming that past Presidents couldn't lie about when the war ended. Of COURSE they could have lied about when the war ended -- they just didn't, because (a) they had no reason to and (b) they knew they'd never get away with it for long. They could have played the "we have secret information that the war continues" card that you're worried about future administrations playing in the current war. If we as private citizens look at the world around us and say "WHAT terrorists?", how exactly is the government going to get away with saying "oh, trust us -- they're out there"?<BR/><BR/><I>If the president wants additional powers for a war on terror, they should be sought and granted as in any other war. </I><BR/><BR/>They have been. That's why, for example, Bush got new authorization for the invasion of Iraq, even though that war was and is seen as part of the larger war on terrorism. If we need to go to war with Iran as well, separate authorization will be sought for that too. Thus far the original 9/11 authorization of force has, so far as we know, only been used against Al Qaeda and its support network.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137101647372285992006-01-12T16:34:00.000-05:002006-01-12T16:34:00.000-05:00I must have overlooked the Massive Threat to Liber...<I>I must have overlooked the Massive Threat to Liberty clause of the Fourth Amendment.</I><BR/><BR/>That's surprising; your ability to detect the invisible "right to have private conversations" in the Fourth Amendment would suggest that you're pretty good at spotting Constitutional rights whether they're really there or not. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137088680907822862006-01-12T12:58:00.000-05:002006-01-12T12:58:00.000-05:00but I just don't see the massive threat to liberty...<I>but I just don't see the massive threat to liberty here</I><BR/><BR/>I must have overlooked the Massive Threat to Liberty clause of the Fourth Amendment.<BR/><BR/><I>In short, we aren't going to war to wipe out the IRA, nor does anybody think we are</I><BR/><BR/>Under this Administration, no.mythagohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138471078836187498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137085673441459522006-01-12T12:07:00.000-05:002006-01-12T12:07:00.000-05:00Revenant wrote...The clear intent was that Congres...Revenant wrote...<BR/><BR/>The clear intent was that Congress should decide when the USA goes to war. Congress did decide when we went to war -- that was the authorization of force.<BR/><BR/>==================================<BR/><BR/>Actually, no, Rev, they didn't. What does the word "when" (as in "Congress did decide when we went to war") mean to you? Obviously "when" in this case didn't refer to a specific time... right??? It referred to a time of the President's choosing... right?<BR/><BR/>Or... am I right? <BR/><BR/>For the last few years certain Democratic revisionists have actually been arguing the Congress never did specifically give President Bush the authority to go to war "at will," but only "if necessary." You know that, Rev! <BR/><BR/>But anyway... that's the point, now, isn't it? The post-WW-2 practice of handing over war making power to the president allows members of Congress to later try to wiggle out of their initial support - thus creating confusion and division.<BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/><BR/>Revenant continued...<BR/><BR/>The clear wording is "Congress shall have the power to declare war". There's no textual requirement for the form the declaration has to take or the wording it has to use. <BR/><BR/>================================<BR/><BR/>You're reaching, here, Rev. (*GRIN*) Following your logic why is the phrase even in the Constitution? The clear meaning and intent - not to mention common sense and simple organizational efficiency - was to differentiate the Congress' power to decide when and where this nation goes to war from the president's power as Commander-In-Chief.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that... basically what Congress was doing was putting the ball in the President's court - putting the onus on the President to take this country to war and for all intents and purposes relinquishing their own constitutional duties to the President. BUZZ!!! Sorry, Rev... they can't do that.<BR/><BR/>Following your logic any Congress could simple pass a resolution on the first day of its term authorizing the President to invade any nation of his (or one day her!) choosing at any time of his choosing within his term of his office. Do you think this is what the Founders had in mind, Rev?<BR/><BR/>==================================<BR/><BR/>Reverant continued...<BR/><BR/>Congress declared war when they authorized the President to attack another nation. <BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/><BR/>Hmm... so a state of war existed between Iraq and the U.S. from the moment Congress passed the resolution? Is that what you're saying, Rev? I forget... how specific was the resolution? Did it specifically apply only to Iraq or was it open-ended? Did Congress actually declare war on the entire world that day and you're the only one who realized it? (*GRIN*)<BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/><BR/>Revenant continued...<BR/><BR/>The belief that it doesn't count as a declaration because Congress didn't say "Simon says" is silly and without legal or Constitutional basis.<BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Rev... you're just wrong. Listen... if the Founders had intended the President to have war MAKING (in terms of deciding when, where, and with what nations) power they would have made that clear in the Constitution. They would have written something along the lines of "The Chief Executive shall have the duty and power to take the nation into war whenever and wherever it is in his judgement necessary to do so." Sorry, Rev... I missed that section. (*SMILE*)<BR/><BR/>No, Rev, Congress doesn't have to use the phrase "We Declare War Against..." They could use the phrase "A state of war now exists between the United States and..." There's a whole bunch of ways a "declaration" can be written, but for God's sake, let's stop playing word games; the clear intent of the Founders and the clear logic of the Constitution was and is that Congress must specifically declare war against "someone" and inherent with logic the specific declaration should be effective from the date of the declaration.<BR/><BR/>================================<BR/><BR/>Revenant<BR/><BR/>So, no, there's nothing contrary to either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution in the way Congress declares war these days. <BR/><BR/>================================<BR/><BR/>With respect... we disagree.<BR/><BR/>=================================<BR/><BR/>Revenant finished with...<BR/><BR/>The important thing was, and is, preventing the President from using the military as a private army free from Congressional control. <BR/><BR/>==================================<BR/><BR/>But, Rev... that's exactly where your logic leads!<BR/><BR/>BILLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137052136458656382006-01-12T02:48:00.000-05:002006-01-12T02:48:00.000-05:00Revenant,I stand by my statement, though apologize...Revenant,<BR/><BR/>I stand by my statement, though apologize if my wording was a little strong (listening to these gasbags in the Senate for 3 days will do that). Saying that 'Bush supports the torture ban' is just plain inaccurate. Now if you want to argue that he is not <B>bound</B> by that ban due to some Yooian machinations, that's a differnt thing, and we can have that discussion (though I'd prefer not to, I think we can both link to about 50 blogs with the relevant arguments and agree to disagree.)Poohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088628100700088755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137041856769463272006-01-11T23:57:00.000-05:002006-01-11T23:57:00.000-05:00The problem with comparing the War on Terror to th...<I>The problem with comparing the War on Terror to the Cold War or previous "hot" conflicts is that "terror" is not a government, political movement, or ideology - it is an operational tactic used by a wide array of extremist organizations of every poltical hue.</I><BR/><BR/>It is pretty universally understood that when we say "terrorism", we mean "Islamic terrorism". And while it is true that a wide variety of organizations use terrorism, virtually all international terrorism is carried out by Muslims. Domestic terrorism can be dealt with as a law enforcement matter within the various countries it afflicts.<BR/><BR/>In short, we aren't going to war to wipe out the IRA, nor does anybody think we are. We just say "War on Terrorism" instead of "War on Islamic Terrorism" because there's already enough of a "the US has declared war on Islam" sentiment as it is.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137038645368783482006-01-11T23:04:00.000-05:002006-01-11T23:04:00.000-05:00The problem with comparing the War on Terror to th...The problem with comparing the War on Terror to the Cold War or previous "hot" conflicts is that "terror" is not a government, political movement, or ideology - it is an operational tactic used by a wide array of extremist organizations of every poltical hue. Does the War on Terror end when Al Qaeda is smashed and Bin Laden captured or killed? Do we have to smash all of the right-wing movements that utilize terror as well? What about organizations that may split from the Al-Qaeda parent - do we have to crush all of them before we declare "victory?" <BR/><BR/>If this was an explicitly defined War on Al-Qaeda, I'd be a lot less worried about Bush's grandiose exercises in Presidential power - this war, however is so nebulously defined that President Putin can even try cramming his Chechnya mess under its aegis. I don't see a neatly-defined resolution to this war - it may be years before we even recognize that we've "won."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137030349518380802006-01-11T20:45:00.000-05:002006-01-11T20:45:00.000-05:00you are creating a condition that is not analogous...<I>you are creating a condition that is not analogous to any other war, and one nearly impossible to discern.</I><BR/><BR/>Pardon me, but it is analogous to just about every other war we've fought. World War II, for example, didn't end when Hirohito said "I give". It ended when all of the Japanese had been either killed, captured, or had consented to deal with us peacefully. Surely you're not claiming that we'd still have considered WW2 over, even if the Japanese had kept up with shooting at us and crashing planes into our ships, so long as the Japanese government said "we surrender"? Of course not. What has always mattered has been that the actual violence stops.<BR/><BR/><I>True, but the "Cold War" did not confer war powers, which is our specific point of debate here (right?).</I><BR/><BR/>The point of debate was whether it is possible to recognize when a conflict ends, even if the conflict was against a vague and widely-dispersed foe. If we are able to say "the Cold War is over", why is it so strange to think that we'll be able to recognize when the war on terrorism has been fought to completion?<BR/><BR/><I>In this case, how is it possible to know that "all" terrorists and sponsored have been capitulated or been killed, as you suggest?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid I don't see the impossibility here. Terrorists are just people, and people can be counted and tracked. Obviously we can't have perfect knowledge, just like we didn't have perfect knowledge that Japan's surrender was genuine. Ultimately all wars end either when (a) the people in charge figure the war's over and convince the American people they're right or (b) the American people get cranky about the war and demand that it end. The war on terrorism will end the same way.<BR/><BR/><I>The key difference here is that we have no way to form our own judgement. All that we have is what our leaders tell us, which is naturally uncomfortable.</I><BR/><BR/>If you said "there may come a day when all we have is what our leaders tell us" I would agree. But the idea that all we have *today* is their word is simply not true at all. There are plenty of terrorist threats to Americans that can easily be discerned without taking our government's word for it (e.g., Iran).<BR/><BR/>Should that hypothetical day come to pass when a private citizen is unable to detect any threat from terrorism it won't matter if the government insists the threat is there. The pressure will come down on Congress to end the war regardless.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137028292186660122006-01-11T20:11:00.000-05:002006-01-11T20:11:00.000-05:00You cannot be serious in suggesting that him signi...<I>You cannot be serious in suggesting that him signing it only because he doesn't believe it applies to him is the same as the support of 90 senators and the majority of the American people.</I><BR/><BR/>I suggested nothing of the kind, seriously or otherwise.<BR/><BR/><I>Your reading is tendentious to the point of purposeful mendacity. Stop it.</I><BR/><BR/>Ease off on the 25¢ ad-hominems and think for a minute, Pooh. Rainsborough's claim was that Bush reserves the right to torture whenever he feels like it and that the Republican Congressional leadership backs him on this. The reality is that Bush has claimed the right only to use torture in cases where his Constitutional powers would allow it (i.e., in cases of national security) Furthermore, a supermajority of both houses specifically passed the McCain bill in order to limit Bush's power, which means that Rainsborough's claim about Republican leaders backing Bush's position is also untrue.<BR/><BR/>Now, it may be that you personally draw no distinction between "national security" and "when he feels like it", but I don't see why I'm obligated to share that belief. And given that nobody here has any evidence that Bush intends to pull such a stunt, it is certainly dishonest to go around saying that Bush claims a blanket ability to authorize torture.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137014403663061282006-01-11T16:20:00.000-05:002006-01-11T16:20:00.000-05:00Revenant, this:McCain's torture ban has the suppor...Revenant, this:<BR/><BR/><I>McCain's torture ban has the support of a majority of Congressional Republicans, <B>plus Bush himself</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>is the single most ridiculous thing you've ever said here. You cannot be serious in suggesting that him signing it <I>only because he doesn't believe it applies to him</I> is the same as the support of 90 senators and the majority of the American people. Your reading is tendentious to the point of purposeful mendacity. Stop it.Poohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088628100700088755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137012511758781182006-01-11T15:48:00.000-05:002006-01-11T15:48:00.000-05:00As a practical matter, I don’t believe we know who...<I>As a practical matter, I don’t believe we know who all terrorists are. We don’t have a checklist, exactly.</I><BR/><BR/>When have we ever fought a war by working our way down a checklist of everyone fighting on the other side? The first goal has to be the elimination of their support structure. Without a support network many, if not most, terrorists would give up the fight and it would be much harder for the remainder to find and train new recruits. *That's* when we focus on rounding up the die-hards.<BR/><BR/><I>FDR could not pretend that Hirohito had not surrendered</I><BR/><BR/>Especially since FDR was dead at the time. :)<BR/><BR/><I>any sitting president can decide whether or not we have "won" the war on terror.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that is any more true with the war on terrorism than it was with the Cold War. It isn't as though the Communists of the world got together one day and said "we surrender -- capitalism and democracy have won". But by the early 90s it had ceased to be possible for any politician or pundit to credibly talk about the threat posed by international communism.<BR/><BR/>Americans consented to the end of hostilities with Germany and Japan not because those countries said "we surrender!", but because we believed they weren't a threat anymore (and, as it turns out, we were right). Should we become similarly convinced that Islamic terrorism has been essentially eliminated as a problem we will require of our elected officials that they end the war on terrorism, too.<BR/><BR/><I>You are begging the question here, by defining “discernable end” as an end date.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, how did we know that our war with Japan was over? It certainly wasn't because Hirohito pinky-swore that it was. We parked armies on top of the Japanese for years, and occupied them at gunpoint, specifically because we *weren't* entirely convinced that the threat was gone. But at some point a consensus was reached that Japan no longer posed a threat, and we allowed them self-government again. In the interim -- between 1941 and 1952 -- we had to rely on our own judgement and what our leaders told us in order to decide whether a continued war was necessary.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137005860033738712006-01-11T13:57:00.000-05:002006-01-11T13:57:00.000-05:00I don't think that either his optimistic estimate ...<I>I don't think that either his optimistic estimate of such a probability or his rather cavalier dismissal of it is likely to impress a lot of Americans who are not hardcore libertarians.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you read the Reason debate over corporate responsibility? I don't think Rogers is trying to impress anyone else.<BR/><BR/>You're right that it's not an argument likely to win many converts, but that doesn't make it a wrong argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1137002729581825032006-01-11T13:05:00.000-05:002006-01-11T13:05:00.000-05:00Jeez Cathy, my ba, i mention out thread's lengthy ...Jeez Cathy, my ba, i mention out thread's lengthy detour into the alleged illegality of the war, and in so doing give birth to the exact same detour in your thread.<BR/><BR/>My bad, but you gotta admit it's kind of funny.<BR/><BR/>BKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1136964570711136802006-01-11T02:29:00.000-05:002006-01-11T02:29:00.000-05:00Joel -- the argument is that Al Qaeda, despite goi...Joel -- the argument is that Al Qaeda, despite going 14-0 against some of the best counter-terrorism best (Turkey, Tunisia, Jordan, India, Spain, and Britain); and killing over 4,000 people in these attacks, EXCLUDING IRAQ, somehow is doomed to failure in the US due to ...<BR/><BR/>What exactly? Magic fairy dust?<BR/><BR/>The reason the Ohio, Northern VA, LA, Lodi, Lackawanna, Padilla, and other Al Qaeda cells were stopped was not torture, unfettered secret police, or identity cards. But MASSIVE technology, the BEST problem solvers in the world, and unlimited money.<BR/><BR/>The risk factor goes (best guess given Al Qaeda operations elsewhere) like this:<BR/><BR/>1. Most likely, various suicide bombing attacks on the same day in malls, sports arenas, the like coinciding with mass murder at schools (particularly elementary schools, etc. that are Jewish) and government offices. Around 80% within two years without lots of technology and manpower applied to finding these guys. [Actual plans by the LA jihadis]<BR/><BR/>Basically this possibility is the plot by the LA Jihadists, aimed at replicating Beslan (which also included blowing two airliners out of the Sky). You need a team of about 10-12 guys willing to die armed with AKs. Not a lot of outlay and impossible to stop once set into operation. Once you set up cells like this you can carry out these operations over and over again; London was hit TWICE. And yes Al Qaeda also learns from it's failures to kill as many as planned. Unfortunately.<BR/><BR/>2. Somewhat more likely; hijacking an air freight plane, or even better placing a crew inside (pilot and co-pilot) who are willing to crash it into some massive sporting event. College football stadiums in the South and Midwest routinely get around 100K people, so that's a lot of victims. Takes more prep time and planning so likelihood about 50% within two years without tech measures applied. Doubtless this has been wargamed but the sheer volume of air freight means you can't watch EVERYONE and EVERY PLACE.<BR/><BR/>3. Less likely but more scary, nuclear attacks with Iranian or Pakistani nukes. Smuggled in however. Planners in NYC estimate 1.6 million dead for a mid-town Manhattan bomb of Hiroshima size (rather small). Likelihood? Who knows? Maybe 30-40% within two years? Less maybe?<BR/><BR/>The danger is that if you have that event, even if it's unlikely (like say, a Hurricane hitting New Orleans) one year, cumulatively it is dead certain. And will kill a LOT more than Katrina did. Total dead from Katrina in MS and LA were 1,000 or so. Versus 1.6 million.<BR/><BR/>So what you're arguing is that we should beat up Bush for not preparing for an event that each year was unlikely, but certain eventually, that killed 1,000 people, but should merely shrug off 1.6 million dead that is also unlikely each year but certain eventually. Given that bin Laden got a public FATWA from a Saudi Imam justifying nuclear attacks on the US, this to me seems a denial of basic reality.<BR/><BR/>That's not logic merely Bush Derangement Syndrome.<BR/><BR/>The real danger to civil liberties comes when government abandons it's duty to it's people. While stories out of New Orleans were untrue in some regard, yes women were sexually assaulted and some people were killed. Gangs did rule the streets. If we ARE hit with a nuclear weapon, it's clear to me that people will conclude that government is incapable of protecting them due to PC and civil liberties concerns, and take vigilante action to make themselves safe. It is undeniably true that if there are no Muslims in the US there can be no Muslim-led terror attacks. We court the mob to the degree that we ignore the 9/11 Commission specific recs that include sharing info between NSA and the FBI, over-concern over civil liberties of suspected terrorists, and failure to put preventing mass casualty terror attacks over legalistic processes. Better to simply deport terror suspects here illegally than worry about the balance of civil liberties and legalism.<BR/><BR/>Food for thought. Two of the 9/11 hijackers including leader Atta were stopped for speeding in Florida, at a time when their visas were expired. If they had been flagged (anathema to civil libertarians) as Visa violators and arrested and deported, the plot may well have been aborted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1136962048622960842006-01-11T01:47:00.000-05:002006-01-11T01:47:00.000-05:00The Republican Congress is led by men who approve ...<I>The Republican Congress is led by men who approve even the president's assertion that he's free to torture as he deems necessary</I><BR/><BR/>McCain's torture ban has the support of a majority of Congressional Republicans, plus Bush himself.<BR/><BR/>Reading your post (and others in this thread) I kind of get the feeling that, in many people's view, Congress is always right in power disputes with the Executive, and the courts are always right in power disputes with the Executive branch or Congress. Our system is one of checks and balances, not "court > congress > President". There are many scenarios in which, when the Executive says one thing and the courts say another, the *courts* are wrong. Ditto for conflicts between the executive branch and Congress, or between Congress and the courts.<BR/><BR/>For example, the Judicial branch isn't granted authority over enemy combatants captured in wartime. If the US military catches an enemy combatant in Afghanistan and throws them in a cell, and the court says "we get a say in that" and the President says "no you don't", from a Constitutional point of view it is probably the COURT that is abusing its authority, not the President.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, it is questionable whether Congress has authority to tell the President *how* to fight a war. It funds and raises the armed forces, and declares when and with whom wars may be fought, but the President is the commander in chief -- not the House of Representatives or the Senate. So, again, a case can be made that Congress can say "attack Iraq", but not "attack Iraq without using torture on people you capture".<BR/><BR/>A lot of the specifics of which branch gets to do what rely on tradition rather than on explicit instructions in the Constitution. The things Bush is doing aren't unprecdented; both Lincoln and FDR employed far more draconian powers in a far broader manner, and somehow our republic survived. So long as we keep having elections, nobody's power, however broad in wartime, is without limit.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1136960365791873842006-01-11T01:19:00.000-05:002006-01-11T01:19:00.000-05:00I'll give my brief answers (even though I am lib/l...I'll give my brief answers (even though I am lib/left rather than lib/con). Since I'm working on my own post on this, don't want to scoop myself, now do I ;)<BR/><BR/> 1) Tend strongly towards no, but the question is too broad to give an absolute answer.<BR/><BR/> 2) Absolute, unqualified no.<BR/><BR/> 3) Yes. I watch 24 too.<BR/><BR/> 4) Categorical no.<BR/><BR/> 5) Depends on what 'legally' means, but tend towards yes.<BR/><BR/> 6) I don't understand the question. They should have normal law enforcement powers - I'm skeptical about enhancing that power further, (though 'terrorist warrants' might be appropriate. Still judicial oversight, etc...)<BR/><BR/> 7) Emphatic no.<BR/><BR/> 8) Absent legitimate martial law scenarios, no.<BR/><BR/> 9) No to the on demand. Nat'l ID card is a sticky wicket - there has been a lot said about the 'false sense of security' effect of such 'official' documents. Much like the race between bigger bombs and better armor is always won by the bombs, so too the contest between conterfeiting and counterfeit prevention.<BR/><BR/> 10) The public, sure, maybe, I don't know. Congress, no, judiciary no.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Revenant, how is the power limited by the purse strings if he can just take it because he needs it? If intelligence is critical to warmaking so a fortiori is funding. If he doesn't have to abide by the McCain ammendment rulemaking re: army, then why does he have to abide spending decisions? To extend the argument slightly to the absurd, what if GWB is convinced that Hilary assuming office would be disastrous for national secutiry, therefore he needs to stay on and direct the war effort. (I'm kidding on the last one. Mostly.)Poohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088628100700088755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1136947058160221192006-01-10T21:37:00.000-05:002006-01-10T21:37:00.000-05:00Let me P.S. that. I realize that the National Sec...Let me P.S. that. I realize that the National Security Agency and the CIA are not the President, but they are still U.S. governmental officials, therefore they are not above the law.<BR/><BR/>And if soldiers are keeping the peace domestically, that means we are under martial law.<BR/><BR/>I wish some of these hotshots in Washington would familiarize themselves with the Federalist Papers, our Constitution and some really good books on the American Revolution -- preferrably written by people who actually lived through it.Lori Heinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12907163214797942192noreply@blogger.com