Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Yeah, it's me again...	excon	02/04/05
Hello experts: I think we can be divided into two camps, here on the political board. There are those who support the Constitution unequivocally (and basic human rights for everyone), (that’s me), and there are those who think that our present situation requires a suspension (if only temporarily) of basic human rights (that’s you). I believe what I do, not because I sympathize with how our government treats bad guys, but because I worry that, if we let them do it to the bad guys, then they’ll do it to the good guys. (Or continue to do it, but that’s another argument.) My position stems from the belief that the present assault on the Constitution is not new. In spite of those assaults, that document has withstood the test of time and still stands erect (with minor changes) today. I’m proud of that record and who we are (were). Today, however, I’m in fear for our cherished traditions of due process and equal rights. A government with the power to spirit people away and declare that's the end of the matter is exactly the kind of government that we always claimed to oppose. For us to become that kind of government is unbelievably scary. Your president, along with his new Attorney General, is fighting for nothing less than the death of due process for anyone it rounds up, no matter how arbitrarily it did so, in its enemy combatant sweeps. Such tyrannical powers should offend anyone who cares about such old-fashioned notions as the rule of law, checks and balances, and constitutional guarantees. I know, you’re gonna give me a list of reasons why “these people” shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights and protections you enjoy. Just l ike every time the Constitution was assaulted. And some of you will deny that what we are doing goes against anything. That’s bothersome. But, what bothers me the most, is that I seem to be the only voice for the Constitution here on these boards. excon
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/04/05 10:02 am: Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention those of you will argue that they must be guilty of something or else they wouldn't have been rounded up, right? Maybe - but, how would that be determined without any process? excon Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/04/05 12:17 pm: They are being classified according to the Geneva conventions ;they are unlawful combatants by Geneva definitions . I have seen no clear evidence that the President is acting outside the Constitution. Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp(1948) (this case was also sited by Justice Thomas in the recent HAMDI V. RUMSFELD decision): "The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive Branch taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion and inquiry." Like I said ;the executive has been playing it's role .Now is the time for Congress to act.
Answered By		Answered On
tomder55		02/04/05
Zacarias Moussaoui (the "twentieth hijacker" ) has succeeded in turning his federal criminal trial into a due process circus. Do you really think that in WWII German and Japanese prisoners were subject to 4th 5th and 6th Amendment rights? Should they have receive Miranda warnings ? Conversely when we capture terrorists on the battle field are they entitled to only give their name ;rank and serial number ? I do not think that the measure that were taken in the aftermath of 9-11 have been severe .Certainly there is historical precidence for much worse . The Constitution survived mass detentions ;suspension of habeus corpus;supression of dissent ( both Adams and Woodrow Wilson prosecuted those who argued against policy ) or the shutting down of the press(Lincoln had newspapers seized).Excesses of the past were not repeated. Although I think that military commissions and tribunals should commence and happen at a more timely basis ,I find nothing unconstitutional in the concept . Roosevelt had simular ones set up for Nazi saboteurs caught in the U.S. I agree that the Administration should not be the only branch of the gvt. involved in the decision about how to handle what is a unique situation ;this so called war on terrorism where we are dealing not with nation states but nationless entities that wage war against us. The Bush Adm. acted out of necessity of an immediate response . The courts are only now playing their role(and poorly at that ) ,and the Congress is MIA .Even though they could easily establish civilian 'special courts ' that would handle cases where issues of national security confict with an open system of judicial review. Michael Chertoff has argued that what the system needs is structural reform .Rules governing the detention of terrorism suspects must be explicit and comprehensible. A definition of what is an "enemy combatant" is needed and what that special status means . What are the criteria by which an individual may be determined to be an enemy combatant? Who is authorized to review challenges ? What rights does an enemy combatant have? It is past time for the administration out of necessity going it alone on these matters. It is past time for fingerpointing about the deficiencies of a system that no one is offering a better alternative to .Congress and the Courts all have a role to play in our system . It is about time they do.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!