Haezed

I agree. Hamdan's guidance was a great starting point and I think we should let that legal guidance work its way through the system. This means that hte detainees are going to have to exhaust their rights as granted by Hamdan and the Congress before they can assert the right of Habeas Corpus. So sayeth the US S.Ct. and that is the law of our land. So long as we want to remain a county of law and not men, that will have to stand for a time. This is the fundamental question lurking beneath all of these words. Are we facing an entirely new threat as terrorists are able to latch onto technology that is ramping upward along an exponential curve? Terrorism has existed before but taking out a bus or even a bunch of people is not the same as rearranging the skyline of the largest city in a country and damn near taking out White House or Congress. These guys trained, in part with a $50 program from Microsoft. What worries me is the next generation of capabilities they will have 20 years from now. Is this just a criminal justice problem or are we in a war? I believe the answer is in the middle for now BUT if they take out a major city, it's war. Period. End of story. The world as we know it will be foreever changed for the worse. I could have gone a while without that image but I'll agree primarily because Pangloss is standing in the shadows ready to pull the plug. He scares me. Sounds like a good plan! Umm.... where is Oz?

If Rush Limbaugh had said something similiarly idiotic, the press would have him tarred and feathered by now. Incidentally, here's Popular Mechanics take on the WTC 7 conspiracy theory:

That's not really a fair critique of Jacob's reaction. He was appalled by the quick confessions not so much that they didn't take on the entire Iranian navy. I think he wanted a little more resistance in that area. I could never make that judgment but I think Jacobs has earned the right to comment and wouldn't be so quick to scourge him for doing so.

Like the author, I have a hard time saying this because I have not faced anything remotely like the situation the Brits faced. FWIW:

This kind of technology is the least of my concerns. My concern is what we do after a dirty bomb or worse takes out a chunk of London or NYC. In a fifty year time frame, I can easily see a "minority report" future (the tech, not the ability to see the future), where we have imbedded chips as national ID cards and programs routinely monitor all movements for suspicious activity. I don't fear getting to this dire point via a slippery slope. I think it will come in a rush. I watched the history channel show the other night on the Plague and how institutions and retraints crumbled in the face of the planic. While I don't imagine ever losing 33-50% of the population, it will only take a couple of spectacular super-9/11s to get to this point. If the masses have a genuine fear of mass death, most citizens will take the "I have nothing to hide" approach to this kind of technology. They'd want it to turn off in their homes but they would see the public places as fair game to monitor.

It is a fuzzy kind of right to be sure but the concept emanates from the basic right of an individual to be left alone. The right to say this is my space, not yours, my home, my body, my life. The S.Ct. has recognized this right in some instances as the right of privacy but that right is constrained by judicial deference for legislative actions. When the S.Ct. acts is a fuzzy judgment call based on the loosest of language. For example, in striking a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, Justice Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” While in the absence of a specific right of privacy in the Constitution, judicial right of privacy has been gathered from such "penumbras" and "emanations," I think the legislators should always firmly keep in mind the basic principle of the sanctity of the individual to make decisions about himself so long as they do not adversely impact others. Arguments such as "we are all interconnected and hurting yourself hurts the collective" (not that you made this argument) prove entirely too much as such an argument would justify every kind of intervention such as universal morning PE along with, I guess, now, a glass of red wine every evening. Yippie! There are difficult lines to be drawn and, frankly, I'm not sure how society would fair as a practical matter if MJ and worse were as easy to acquire as alcohol. Alcohol already tears a swath through our lives and I don't even want to think about the debates regarding second hand MJ smoke. At the same time, I firmly believe in the rights of the individual as opposed to collective to make decisions regarding solely himself. I believe there is a right broader than that recognized by the Courts to be wrong subject to the same caveat that I you can't harm others. I do not view individuals as cogs in machines (not that you do) so I dont' think government should, although legally it can, consider the impact of having a broken cog in the various parts of the machine. The exceptions, of course, would be where the the abrupt breaking of that cog could hurt others directly, e.g. airplane pilots.

Jobs must be earned.

How'd I do?

If I'm not hurting anyone, why can't I fry my few remaining brain cells, turn up dat rock music up till my hearing goes, eat fatty food, play online games till I have cardiac arrest and even refuse to take my vitamins? It's like, an "I get to do with my own body what I want to" kind of right, dude!

Four questions can have a single answer. I've given that answer which acknowledges that you have asked difficult questions that help distinguish this from a prototypical "war." However, there are also similarities with a war even though we are not fighting a traditional nation state. For this reason, I have repeatedly said that the US, as the primary leader in this fight, is struggling to develop new rules that will apply to this fight of the 21st century. Why is this not an adequate answer? Dear friend (how's that pangloss?), you do not understand how things work in any legal system when confronted with a new paradigm. It is entirely possible for appeals to be reversed, remanded, appealled again, and reversed all over again. That's just the way it works. Would I rather the executive, legislative and judical branches instantly come to the same conclusion as to proper procedure should be in facing this dire threat? Yes. What ar the chances of that happening? Ummm... I'd say 1 in 1,000. I'm against that. Well, determination of enemy combatant status is not a "trial" but ... Yes, I'm for that. I generally favor this although i'm not sure if a proof beyond a reasonable doubt is suitable as a standard of proof when applied to a potential terrorist who wants to take out an American city. I'm against those. Oh, so you were arguing about the old pre-Hamdan procedures? I'm not entirely sure why you were so concerned about what existed pre June-2006 but I can honestly say that this was not my focus. The fact that 95%+ of the world's population is religious doesn't make me so. I admit the possibility we aren't perfect but I see a system that is adapting and dealing with the situation. Are you still in the pre-Hamdan era? That is so pre-June 2006 of you! (You are so good looking!) I'm not expert I just know that Hamdan dealt with this so why the emotions (you little devil you)? Thank you! I mean that in a very kind way. Don't care. Pre-Hamdan. The S.Ct. is a part of our nation. Don't we get credit for that? What striking blue eyes you have. I just love your prose. Sure they are acceptable. It's called due process and is our Constitution in action. You'll just have to wait (but you'll look so good doing it!) You said you didn't know what else to say but I am very glad you kept going. Is it just me or does the word "onus" sound vaguely obscene? Not when you say it, of course, but just reading it like that it sounds kind of nasty. I'm sure you say it in a nice way. I do appreciate the international community but, now that I think about it, I don't think I'll trust my security to them. Yes, you've mentioned these ideas before but you do it so well. Could you say it again, please?? I love you man!!

In a few hundred years, Martians will object to such imperialist sentiments and demand independence.

Like, it's a pursuit of happiness kind of right, dude.

In which trimester?

For your viewing pleasure. This one really made me laugh. Talk about a different era! Here's another. What a warmonger. The guy sounds just like GWB! With the last two links, I'm referring to the first ads in the demo column.

How can we have a discussion if you get to tell me what I think? That's news to me. The gist of your posts seemed to be that due process is dead in America. They have had two opinions by the United States Supreme Court which has literally thousands of such requests for review each year. In this country, the S.Ct. is the institution that interprets the law and they have been fully engaged in the Gitmo process, a fact you would have known earlier if you'd read Hamdan. If you care so deeply about the state of US justice, you might read the opinions which address the issues you raised. Until this post, I really could not tell if you were aware of the last two decisions on point. I read Hamdan quite some time ago. I looked the other day for the full text of the recent decision but haven't had time to read it. Then again, I'm not the one concerned about the death of US justice. If I felt so strongly, I would have read them first thing. Non-sequitur. You admit that Hamdan is a good decision and state that you have faith in the S.Ct., yet you show no appearance of understanding the issues which were pending. So far only one set of proceedings have been stricken and, yes, it was a stinging rebuke for GWB. That's what we have courts for in the US. Unless you are a lemming, there is no reason to believe that the majority is right about our system of justice, particularly if they do not show any evidence of understanding our system. First, let me ask whether you saying that all enemy combatants or spies should be tried in all wars in criminal (not civil) courts? I assume not but before engaging on this question, let me make sure I understand your position. I prefer for it to be a "stop the terrorists" exercise before it is a propaganda exercise. There are enormous practical problems with this but first let me make sure I understand your position. They kind of are important.

No, my answer is that we are going to have to come up with middle ground. We can't treat this like a war or like a criminal justice exercise. That kind of on/off switch thinking just won't work. I think we are going to end up with the S.Ct. making decisions which really won't work in a "real" war and, hopefully, they'll start making distinctions based on what we are facing in the 21st, not what we were facing in the 20th, century. Okay, seriously, how could you be so dismissive of US due process without having read this decision yet???? I don't mean this offensively. But how for the love of all that is holy and good (I'm talking about things like the Green Bay Packers), can you hurl hyperbole in every direction, care so deply about this issue, declared definitive opinions about the state of US justice, yet not have even bothered to read a publically available document which is the latest word from the highest court in the land?? The latest word eight months ago?? Please do not be offended but I am really not interested in your legal analysis when you are just now starting to read the critical decision from over eight months ago. Your more recent posts waxed eloquent about habeas corpus without realizing that this was the subject of a decision just this week which well could allow the right once the detainees exhaust the remedies which were granted to them by Congress as a result of the Hamdan decision.

You are making legal arguments without any inkling of the context. You can't research this stuff on the internet and think you have your answer. You're like one of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant. Who knows or cares if your amatuer legal argument was made in one of the briefs. If you want to know the detail and context of the various arguments, that's where you go, btw - to the briefs filed by the ACLU, the government, read the oral arguments, and finally, maybe, perhaps, peruse the S.Ct.'s opinions. The detainees are getting to make their legal arguments. They have been before the S.Ct. TWICE within the last year. Do you know how rare that is? It's an indication that the S.Ct. is damn serious about this issue.

If we are worried about them making insane claims, then we might as well be the big bad ass they think we are. I give the world more credit than that but increasingly I'm not sure it is deserved. Who cares? If they are going to make idiotic comparisons then we can't deal with them. When does the international community have some responsibility to be rational, refrain from making idiotic comments and, basically, grow up? But these people are insane! They can think anything they want, that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization and there is not a whit we can do about it? I'm all for competing in the marketplace of ideas but the key word here is "ideas." I don't feel the need to prove our democracy to anyone. The duly elected commander in chief took what he considered to be a war time position on detainees in that war. The supreme court has responded, requiring Congressional input, that input has been given, but the detainees rushed to the S. Ct. without using the process as established. The S. Ct., 6-3, said their request for habeas corpus was premature. Two of the justices gave strong leanings to switch if the detainees use the procedures given them. This isn't anything that has to be proven. It's iron clad FACT which can be gleaned by anyone with an ounce of trust in democratic processes, internet access and willingness to do half of hours worth of open minded research. If the world is insane, I guess we just have to keep on keeping on, say our piece, let hte process work and then go on our way. This, folks, is a democracy in action. It is built not to be swift. Quite the opposite, it is built to have competing interests between the various branches. In this case they are all coming into play as they should. Yet, the screaming memmies of the world want us to have it "fixed" tomorrow, and somehow short circuit our democratic process. I can forgive those who never have experienced democracy or taken a basic civics class for not understanding what is in motion in this complex issue.

I'm agen em!

I would be against allowing pregnant women to use thalidomide.

John, I've answered these questions. Reread my posts. Now I'll jump down to portions where you struggle to advocate something specific. I asked you want you would do and you say. There are many laws and many different procedures. What exactly do you want to apply. If you allow habeas corpus, it seems to me you are bringing in the full panoply of procedural rights which is just not feasible. There is a separate issue here besides the answer you want to hear - the supreme court has to apply the precedents of the past and that is their primary focus in their decision on Monday. One of the primary protections of liberty is that we are a nation of laws and not men. We have certain precedents in the past for dealing with "war" and the Supreme Court is struggling not just with what rules they would like to see adopted but with what rules are allowed by past decisions. Letting the intelligence and security organizations do their job is a wonderful thing but (i) they were crippled in the 1970s by the Church Commission, (ii) defense is never 100%, and (iii) you are going to give seemingly full civil rights anyone they catch so they will be crippled beyond all reason. For example, should we have to extradite suspected al-queda members from foreign countries? Whoa, chief. Take it down a notch why dont' you? I asked you what you would do and you keep telling me what we need to stop doing. The only affirmative proposal you have made is to let the intel communities do their job and to sit passively hoping we do not provoke an enemy which already hates our culture. Your's is a do nothing strategy that is going to fail in my opinion. I don't villify you for your opinion or think you are a fool for holding it; however, I am entitled to respectfully disagree. It has happened in all wars and it will happen in this ... whatever it is. What standard after Hamden is applied right now to the initial determination of whether a detainee is an enemy combatant? Do you know? Look, the military courts are having to deal in specifics. Sure, there is some kind of burden of proof that applies but are we really going to have a "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? Are we going to supress evidence which was "illegally" obtained or are we going to ask the fact finders to consider how it was obtained. You seem to think there is no due process being applied and that is not being allowed by either Hamden or congress. You, I suppose, would feel differently if this were a real "war" and your later posts acknowledge that a "war" does not have to be declared, ala Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I & II. I have said at least twice that we need to define what this is we are dealing with here because treating this as a criminal justice exercise would be disasterous and I am likewise uncomfortable with a never ending war against an ill defined opponent. We need new rules which is what we are developing. You are entirely cynical about these processes even though they were directed by the S. Court and will be judicially reviewed. I think this is a sky is falling mindset which I honestly do not understand. You do understand, don't you, that the habeas corpus issue has not been finally decided? Have you read the opinion issued on Monday? But the ruling may be only a temporary set back for the plaintiffs. In a brief order written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, the court suggested the detainees could appeal once their tribunals or preliminary hearings have been completed. This was a 6-3 decision so if Stevens and Kennedy are true to their word, they will accept the appeal after the lower proceedings are completed. The balance will shift to 5-4 once the detainees use the procedures the S.Court ordered occur in Hamdan. It was just in last June that the Supreme Court in Hamdan ordered these new procedures so this is not a shocking decision that the detainees would be required to go through these processes. It's hard to tell whether you are speaking to me personally or to the entire American country. Either way, I'm sorry to see you so saddened while we are engaged in the difficult work of protecting liberty from both government and terrorists.

He said they were enemy combatants. I said, if that is true, then why can't we keep them detained so long as his fellow enemies are fighting us. FWIW, I have repeatedly stressed the definitional problem with this conflict/war/fight against terrorism. I understand the problem here but I do not think that extreme policies in either directions make any sense. You are agreeing with my points. I see no "onus" either way. We have a tried and tested democracy and I don't really care what non-democracies think about us so long as our system is working on a solution. Give me an example of a group in our country that could be reasonably declared a terrorist threat to a foreign country? The example given was the CIA which is pretty silly after the Church commission was done with its work in the 1970s. You both speak in generalities and I'm asking for specifics. If there was any kind of credible group in the US acting through terrorist methods against foreign countries, we would be the first to act against them. Being open minded, doesn't mean you have to shut your eyes to obvious distinctions. I think it does feel good to be a rebel and to condemn your own country. It makes one feel all open minded and far seeing compared to the masses. FWIW, pacifism only works against western democracies who can be shamed by a free media against taking repressive actions which will shut down a pacifist resistance every time. No argument there....

This was my primary point.. I agree that nothing will surpass Dukakis in the tank. However, what bad timing for Edwards. Edwards problem, boiled down, is that he comes across as a light weight, a naif, a piece of fluff. This doesn't help. I also admit, as no one else here will, that I thought it was kind of funny.

When you say he was just being a "bloody twit" as if this were just some bit of youthful hijinxs, you are excusing him. If he's an enemy combatant, why can't we keep him till the war is over? They are developing the rules after the Hamden decision. Some of the defense lawyers didn't want to sign onto this process and yippie for them but I've seen zero, nada, zippo evidence which warrents your hyperbole that there is no due process involved. You used an illustration which would be illogical. Yes, another country could declare that the Green Bay Packers are a terrorist organization but that would not make it even remotely arguably true. Compare and contrast that to your "bloody twit." Except logic and force if necessary. Well, there are some advantages of being a big dog and, frankly, I don't care about being called a hypocrit when i'm fighting for the preservation of my country. That may sound like hyperbole, but it isn't - if we lose a city, my country is gone. We aren't going to get a fair break in the arab media regardless of what we do. Goodie but I don't think yelling does much good either way. Hold the presses! Call the NSA! All the US need do is... (drum roll please) nothing! Your last sentence was one I can agree with finally. Umm... how? How? By doing nothing? Righto. Ok, I have an idea. Let's move Gitmo and name it Hedonism IV. Seriously, these enemies will make their own propaganda no matter what we do. They are offended by our very culture as, sometimes, am I. I'm too tired tonight to look back and see what this refers to. Later on that one... Yes, thank you. I knew that the term meant "bring the body before us" but I don't know, in practical terms, what that means in the context of an enemy combatant or suspected terrorist. If you grant Habeas corpus does that mean that you automatically give the accused the full panapoly of procedural rights granted to US citizens. You understand, I trust, that NO COUNTRY, does that for enemy combatants.

Here's another link: My point is not to agree with Coulter's joke but to say that this is a hit no candidate would have had to take ten years ago. It strikes me as a "Dukakis driving a tank" moment.