Haezed

Let's try to zoom in from the perspective of flying ducks and start talking about what actually is US law. Hamden v. Rumsfeld? What criticism do you have of this decision? That's not all you said. You made sweeping statements about American due process. I don't need to be shocked. I need to be educated and the starting place is to understand the state of US law. Actually, you did say it wasn't, but we'll get past that now. Enemy combatants have never been presumed innocent. Hamden? Yes, I get that you do not understand that we are trying to figure out the differences in due process that will be applied between US citizens and suspected enemies in the war on terror. I see a highly difficult difference which requires some sorting out. You seem to see no difference at all. I think my position is more reasonable. I always like things put right. For enemy combatants, yes. I bet your own government does as well. Ummm: Hamden? This is the complex issue of our day. We have an ill defined enemy who does consider himself to be at war with the US and others. The President has determined that applying full civilian rights to such individuals will not be effective and I tend to agree. The US Supreme Court has weighed in and afforded the rights as evidenced by Hamden and I also tend to agree with that decision primarily because of your last three questions. This is not a typical war but I also tend to think it is more war than a criminal justice exericse. So because Al Qaeda does not operate as a nation state we cannot respond to them as if we are in a war? That's so 20th century of you. You are missing my point. In wartime the "presumption of innocence" and issues of due process are short circuitted. In Hamden, the Supreme Court stepped in and said "not so fast." It's a complex issue and the US should not be pilloried for struggling with this issue. My comment about foreign education was conditioned upon an assumption about what you were saying. Please reread my actual comment. It's not merely the loss of life in 9/11 that produced the reaction. They attacked the symbols of US economic, military and, if all had gone "well" for them, political power. We might now have a rebuilt capitol or white house. Moreover, who is to say what might happen next. What should we have done with the fundraisers in NY? Shouldn't they be afforded a presumption of innocence? Time will tell. The executive branch always over extends itself in war. Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus but these rights were restored by the US Supreme Court. We are witnessing a complex reaction of a brilliantly designed system to the unprecedented confluence of enemy organizations acting behind the shield of nation states but gathering the power to destroy not just buildings but, eventually, cities. There is very little support for the international communities' chicken little view about American due process.

Finland in WWII: FDR did it this way: A brief chronology: June 13, 1942-On June 13, 1942 a Coast Guardsman from a station in Amagansett, New York noticed Colonel Dasch and three others posing as fisherman off the coast of Long Island with a raft. When the soldier investigated, he found that the men were armed and that the men offered him $260.00 to keep the information of their whereabouts undisclosed. A massive manhunt ensues. July 8, 1942 - Dasch, Ernst Peter Burger, and six others - Edward John Kerling, Heinrich Harm Heinck, Richard Quirin, Werner Thiel, Hermann Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt (who had landed in Florida to meet with Dasch and Burger), - were tried by a military commission appointed by President Roosevelt and convicted of sabotage and sentenced to death August 8, 1942 - At the request of Hoover, President Roosevelt commuted the sentence to life imprisonment for Burger, and thirty years for Dasch. The others were executed in the electric chair in Washington D.C Jail. That was WWII justice - less than two months between capture to execution with the entire proceeding held within the military. Was this a blight on America's history? What should FDR have done with these men?

I don't know all of the current wrinkles but I do know that this discussion hasn't really taken into account the Bush/McCain anti-torture bill or the Hamden decision last June. Again, if you have a criticism of the Bush/McCain bill, then I think we can discuss that. Our democracy faced an abrupt shock on 9/11 and has been dealing not only with that event but the reaction of a President who understandably has said, "not again on my watch." All of the checks and balances have come into play on this one, including the sometimes emotive reaction of the international community. These are not simple issues. I agree we shouldn't be stupid about any such operation. OTOH, many times there's going to have to a snatch and grab if we are going to catch terrorists in the countries where they reside. So what is it you propose? Full and open trials in federal district court? First, I'm guessing you do concede that it would have been appropriate to go into Germany or occupied Poland to snatch Frank? The man, while an SS official, was an administrator not a soldier. He was known as "Hitler's lawyer" and later came to be the governor of occupied Poland. Ideally, we could fake Frank's death, capture him and bring him back to America or in some other secret location to drain him dry of information. Under this scenario, Frank would have gotten his trial after the war. The problem here is that this really may be our Children's Children's War and there may be no "after the war" for such men. In Frank's example, it entirly would have depended on the length of the war. Alternatively, we might have given him a trial after we'd drained all of the intel out of him, kind of like we will do with with KSM. We aren't at war with China. We are discussing wartime rules and powers.

How can you care so deeply about this issue and not know what the Supreme Court held in June of last year on this issue? Boggling. This wasn't just a "gaggle of lawyers" but was a significant rewrite of the President's wartime powers. This is not a simple issue and before a traditional ally of the United States writes off an entire history of alliance and friendship, you would think they would first understand what actually has happened. The United States is not just one man, even the President. It has a built in systems of checks and balances which are operating in this instance.

You beat me to the punch with this post. Our system has many checks against tyranny many of which are much more important than an armed citizenry. Our system has multiple protections of liberty one of which is the right to bear arms. No, I wouldn't give nukes to citizens, or tanks or ground to air missles. Competing rights must often be balanced against one another. When I see a bumper sticker that says "I'll give up my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from the barrel," I see a guy expressing his individuality in a rather inarticulate manner and with some degree of defiance against the government.

Why should I, living in America, have any respect for another country IF your thinking is common in that country and and it is commonly believed America has no due process and has a legal system no different from Stalinist Russia wherein 20 million or so were murdered. If that is conventional wisdom in Australia it says more about your own press and educational system than it does about reality in America. Respect is a two way street my friend. You ignore my point that the guy publically admitted/bragged about 9/11 before he was captured. There is no question that he is an enemy combatant. Most intel talking heads I've seen do believe he had some konwledge about the various plots to which he confessed but it was more tangential than stated. In effect, the guy was showing off knowing that he's going to be justly executed one day soon. You can remind me that this is not a war all day long but that does not make it so. Ted Koppel, no Bush lackey, calls this our "Children's Children's war." I think this sums it up nicely and explains why some wires have been crossed in thinking about what can and cannot be done in this "war." Even after your tirade, you seem to allow for torture during war which is more than I would do. (My only point was that it is common place, not that it should be accepted as public policy (not that this has happened)). No country has yet come to grips with how age old precedents should be applied in an asymetrical war where the combatant would take out one of our cities given a chance. Incidentally, if you think things are bad now, let the war on terror be brought to a hault by trial lawyers and wait until there is another attack of a greater magnitude than 9/11.

I love how even CNN feels compelled to slip in the obvious disclaimer which should put to rest this entire mess: "The president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. "

At least we agree that this thread, and much of the political debate, is about comparing this administration to previous ones. I assume youw ould think that if the Nixon comparison is fair game, so would be comparisons to Clinton. Half the battle for the dems is to find a scandle to which the suffix "gate" will stick in conventional wisdom.. In any event, at this stage in the "scandle de jour" (of which we will have a string for the next two years, I think that is a huge stretch to compare this to Watergate. "Laughable" might be a stretch but so is "valid."

What many on the left don't understand is that many Americans sincerely believe this is an issue of freedom. They feel empowered against their government, not just against random intruders, by having weaponry. I say this as a non-gun owner but an armed citizenry is a safeguard against sliding into despotism. I'm not saying it is an effective or complete safeguard but it is a type of safeguard. Imagine a European Jewish population in the 1930s that was armed to the teeth. Hitler's first act would have been to disarm them before acting further.

The alternative, if you really care about this issue so deeply, is to educate yourself about the precedents that have been applied in the present and to read with an open mind the administration's argument for its positions.

I don't want to impose a straw man on you. What comparison is valid?

Heh. No worries.

Well said and I completely agree. Our friends have some obligation to get the facts straight. Hyperbole. As is noted below, they have had a procedure (as I understand it) to determine their status as enemy combatants. What rules did Australia apply to enemy combatants in its last wars? Given that KSM was bragging about 9/11 before he was captured in public tapes, this is kind of silly. More silly hyperbole. Let me know when you want to stop emoting and have a discussion. Our political system doesn't turn on a dime (and any that does is likely to be despotic). The Supreme Court overruled Bush last June as I recall and required additional due process. The mid term elections were a disaster for Bush and it remains to be seen what standards will be applied at Gitmo after 2008. I'm not saying I agree with all that has been done; however, I also see the issues as far more complex than you do given that they will be applied to future wars and future spies in a time of war. No government should accept torture as a matter of policy but if you think the Allies didn't engage in it, including your beloved Aussies, in WWII, you are delusional. There was simply a more sympathetic press at the time. Short answer: the US has not turned into Stalin's Russia overnight and the suggestion that it has speaks to a significant problem with educational systems of other countries.

Bascule, you do realize that you are the one who started making comparisons to past wrongs with the very title of this thread? You were the one using the word "coverup" ignoring that past coverup scandals that had legs were those involving lying under oath. You guys don't think this is all about jamming the square peg of this silliness into the square holes of past scandals?

Loath away but this thread started with a comparison of an 18 day email delay to the infamous 18 minute tape gap in Watergate. This thread is ALL about where this latest "scandal" fits in our frame of reference for past scandals. The comparison to watergate is laughable nor does this tempest compare to Billy gate.

Good thing we kept the thread from getting derailed by refusing to discuss specifics.

The US attorneys were investigating the White House? Where is the "cover-up?" Let's rephrase. Which is worse: Using your executive perogative to fire someone who serves at your whim or committing perjury on a material issue in a sexual harassment case which you eventually settle by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Agreed but this does not mean "fair trial." Are there US citizens in Gitmo? To my knowledge, they were all plucked from Afghanistan, Iraq, etc? In any event, the Supreme Court ruled last year that they are all entitled to a hearing to determine whether they are enemy combatants. Pick another German who was not a military officer - Hans Frank, for example. If there was intel to be gleaned from this man and he was snatched in WWI, there would be no full "fair" trial. Trial could only be afforded to Frank after the war, at Nuremberg.

If you were willing to talk specifics, we could venture into how we know if the underlings, serfs, peons, non-party members, whatever non-weasley word you want to pick for the guys who are not in charge, are so gol-darned happy with their situation. Lol. No, it's begging for you to talk specifics so we can tests your vague generalizations. It's also asking that we debate on a level playing field. We know democracies faults and we know the faults of many nondemocratic governments that leap to mind (Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.) but for the life of me I can't imagine the form of government where the underlings would be thrilled with being underlings. Maybe in the 6th Century King Arthur really did draw Excalibur from the stone and his subjects were thrilled but somehow I doubt you are talking about him. Well, what is it that you think the underlings found admirable in these "darn few" non-democratic governments. Or, maybe you are actually a typical human being that finds freedom sweet. Maybe you need to think that the millions in non-democratic governments are thrilled with their situation because that eliminates any need to do anything to help them? Whoa, chief. I may be a "democracy-worshipper" but why is serf a weasel word? What word would you choose for the 99.9% who are not empowered in a Monarchy? YOu can't blame me for picking the serf model when you refuse to debate specifics. I've heard you advocate the overthrow of the current government many times (e.g. the Bush administration) and on most threads you appear to be very alive. Your act of voting against him, if that's what you did, was an attempt to overthrow the current government. There are mechanisms for amending the structure of the government that will not get you killed. Violence will produce a different response. Contrast that to the non-democratic countries you refuse to name specifically... oh, wait I can't because that would derail the debate.

Happy submission? So your argument hinges on the difference between fearful unhappy submission and happy submission? Ahem. Let's talk of specific non-democratic governments which you admire. Lay em on me. Again, let's deal in a few specifics. YOu talked of Monarchies as potentially good. Can you give me any specifics? Are there any that you would want your children to live under as a serf compared to a Western democracy? There is an extremely high correlation. What specific non-democratic governments are you talking about that allow freedom of press and speech? From this point I do think your post gets derailed. Let me get back to my central point for a moment. If you are born into a dictatorship, you do not have much consent in the matter and, to live and protect your family, you may well submit. Submission to the status quo under threat of death and worse is not the same as consent. Maybe it would help if you would give me some examples of non-democratic governments where you would happily send your children to live?

I don't think there is any evidence of a cover-up under oath. Not telling is not the same as lying under oath (*coughClinton!cough*). This is why the dems want to put Rove et all under oath and why Rove will tesify under oath over Bush's dead body.

My guess is that the administration came to believe that these particular US attorneys were targetting republicans for investigation disproportionately. They probably felt they had enough to deal with considering the regime change on the hill. I would also guess that the particular investigations these attorneys were pursuing will still be pursued; the administration hoped, however, that the targets in the future would be more left-leaning. Which, of course, is why every administration makes sweeping changes at the beginning of the term.

No need for an appology but I was not saying there should be no rules at all. I was worrying that the particular rules we adopt in this low level "war" will not translate well should we ever fight a more traditional conflict. If you want the protection of the geneva convention, wear a uniform. Spies have always been given the short end of the due process stick. If a terrorist is in the US, I put him in the "spy" camp. If he is plotting against us in his home country, I'm not sure what camp that puts him in. Suppose, for example, with the help of the French resistence we had whisked away Himmler in WWII. Would we have given him a full trial or would we have put him in a camp some where and milked him dry of info?

I'll agree it is an awful analogy.

In other words, I can agree with you or be a mindless "my country, right or wrong" zombie. You have certainly simplified the situation in your own mind.