Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution in Wartime
Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.
Basically, now is when it's most important to have groups like the ACLU. Like most liberal groups, they're being attacked as unpatriotic, but considering we have cases like Korematsu on the books and not overturned, having groups that will watch out for violations of our rights and raise public awareness is important.
And it's not like it's only leftist groups fighting for these thigns, either. The article in the post didn't mention things like the Alien or Sedition Acts, but some of the languge in the bill Ashcroft is trying to ram through congress. There was a coalition of groups from the ACLU and gay rights organizatons to the NRA and anti-aborition activists all united in opposition, saying that we can find ways to protect the security of citizens *without* depriving them of rights.
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
>End Anarchist Rant
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Supreme Court Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist has a book, All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime that is about these issues. Here is a quote from a speach he gave at The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in 1999:
So, we can expect to lose 'rights', and we can expect to gain some of them back when the 'war' is over. The problem being, our current war has no defined ending, and it has already been explained to the American citizens that this will be a long drawn out war full of secracy. The longer a war goes on, the more rights that are taken in the name of that war. It is esp. damning that dissonates is being actively suppressed, with the Bush clan warning our media to 'act responsibly' and advising against such things as playing BinLaden's videos. At the end of wartime, we never regain back all that we have lost.
FEMA extends the president the abitlity to stop the constitution. It's a good law! It aids workers get help to where it needs and alows the army to operate on US soil which it is not constitutionaly allowed to. It also alow for marshal law so looters can get shoot immediately.
"If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them."
But what happens when the media is a toy that does not discuss these issues and that is the people's only source for information? Many of my friends have no idea about what is going on with DMCA and the major news organizations refuse to give any coverage from the people's POV. It will be a grim future where we have an uninformed populace who does not even know which issues to oppose.
"Every man is a God in disguise; a divinity playing the fool."
-R.W. Emerson
Of course, at that time, almost everyone was shell shocked, and it was not on the radar yet
In this situation, war has not been formally declared. Usually, in a war, such laws are "for the duration". Since we are not "formally" at war, there is no such limitation.
Freedoms lost may likely be a permanent loss, unless people strive to make sure otherwise.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
T: After this conflict, will we see that Bin Laden speech in full? Will we hear about all the other things that are being kept (rightly) silent now? Or will they be stamped "Top Secret - 25 years", and only released when many of us are collecting our pensions and don't give a damn?
We just have to make sure that the current conflict just keeps on with its original aims - combat terrorists, terrorism and supporters of terrorism, and doesn't morph early next year into a different beast (cheaper oil would be nice, wouldn't it?). There needs to be public accountability for the actions of the military within all conflicts, to ensure that they operate within the bounds of their mission, and that they should not become a pawn in some political game.
Which I don't think will happen this time, but though like pointing out.
CmdrTaco explain this one: Invalid form key: On9kApk2Hq ! and Invalid form key: GSQ8puWVyf !
Hattig :)
-- The price of Linux is support: Book Prices to Kill...
Perhaps a the most significant reason to support the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, someone better armed than you will take away your rights.
I believe Juanita
I'm sick of everyone saying "bin Laden didn't do the WTC attack, and we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan because we don't have proof." Okay, I don't really care at this point whether or not bin Laden did the WTC attack - we've been trying to extradite him for YEARS for crimes he ADMITTED he was responsible for.
So what if he didn't do the WTC attacks? He's guilty of plenty of other things. As for suspending the Constitution in time of war - it clearly allows suspension of the writ of habeous corpus in the event of war/military action. And as for Executive Orders - all it takes to override them is Congress passing a law with enough majority to overrule a veto, and they cease to have an effect.
As for Bush "not negotiating" - Afghanistan has made offers, sure, but none of them are sane. They want to try bin Laden themselves - yeah, that'll be a fair trial. They want to hand over bin Laden to a third country - as long as that country is one of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc. All countries whose populations (and probably judicial systems) are very bin Ladin-sympathetic. Once again, I'm sure he'd get a fair trial.
As for our "horrible" policies in the Middle East. Yes, I'll admit that some of the things we've done were horrible - but what about the other things that people so readily forget? Like the fact that Afghanistan's government's budget consists mostly of foriegn aid - and we provide most of that to them. And the sanctions in Iraq - they don't, as many people say, prevent food or medicine from getting in. They're deliver food and medicine to Iraq, and then have no idea if it's delivered to the appropriate places. Saddam was constructing weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, in violation of international law, and then won't allow people in to see that he's complying with international law. Even though the US allows Russian and UN weapons inspectors in at least once a year to verify their chemical/bio weapons factories are shut down.
I'm sick of all these Americans deciding that America is wrong in this. I'm a freaking citizen of Luxembourg, and I think America's right in this. Why do its own citizens think that it's wrong to defend itself?
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY [deoxy.org] by the International War Crimes Tribunal
LOL! This is a bunch of people who got together and wrote a report! While politically laudable that they exercise their rights to free speech, it is hardly a "verdict" in any but the most delusional sense.
I hereby call myself the International Brain Crimes Tribunal and find you GUILTY of being extremely gullible (or else of trying to purposely decieve people by presenting this collection of folks as a real court). Please son, step away from the Ayn Rand books, nice and slow.
The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media
LOL!!! What planet are you from, that none of your newspapers or TV shows said anything about oil interests? Geez, this has got to be the single worst-kept secret in the history of conspiracies! We might have gotten involved in Iraq because of oil? My god, where did you dig up this revolutionary idea!? Why has no one in the country heard mention of it before?!
This was clearly a suppressed notion until the forces of the International War Truth Tribunal met in Todd's basement the other week after band practice! Their verdict of "Let's order pizza" was heard loud and clear, my friend -- and it was delivered in 30 minute or less!
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I'm not so sure if people would change their views. It may be true that bin Laden's actions are actually contrary to the teachings of the Koran, but it's also true that most religions as practiced do not strictly follow their own holy books. (Or, linking back to the main topic, the U.S. Government is not always in strict adherence to the Constitution.) It seems pretty clear that many Moslems- including many of their religious teachers, particularly the ones in Afgahnistan- believe that the attacks are in perfect accord with Islam. As long as those people have learned their Islam that way, they probably won't change their views about the justice of the attacks.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
elite or élite (-lt, -lt) n. pl. elite or elites A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them" (Times Literary Supplement).
It seems to me that it's pretty clear that by definintion, the political elites are the ones who make command decisions in the economy and in politics. I can't imagine many other ways that it would work really. Even if we had a pure democracy where we voted on every issue, then we would all be elite by definition.
That's an interesting site, but after looking at it a few minutes it seemed to be pretty clear that this website is biased against the American government. A quick look at the judges who convicted George H.W. Bush and others seemed to convince me that it was hardly an impartial decision. International law is a tricky thing at best, and I doubt the credibility of a body of judges who are activists in the case they are considering.
I think you are saying that because the FCC regulates the media that the media is not free to publish what they want. In the article, the doctrine of no prior restraint clearly delineates where the Supreme Court stands on this issue. Media and newspapers can publish what they want, but they can also be held liable for what they publish.
While I don't disagree that there might be many people who have changed their views after the destruction in New York and in Washington, I take exception to your assertion about the lack of evidence against bin Laden. It is clear that the US government has such evidence. It is also clear it wants to keep it secret in order to protect the sources and methods of the intelligence community. President Bush, members of other NATO countries, and many others who have seen the evidence have said that it is convincing. The question of the release of such information is a difficult one, but I am sure that there are people inside the government to find good unclassified evidence to present to the American people.
I agree that non-intervention is a good policy in some instances, but I would also argue that engagement can lead to positive results as well. The thing is, people around the world like America. They want American companies in thier contries, and they like American dollars to flow into their pockets. Disengagement with the world would most likely breed alot more anger against America than it would solve.
On the issue of free trade, I think that we should raise our tariffs against those who are trying to beseige American industry. A good case in point is the steel industry in America. Foreign steel manufacturers are flooding the American market with cheap steel. Most of it is poorly made by underpaid workers in unsafe conditions. Right now the steel industry in America is in big trouble because it is not making a profit on making steel in America. At some point, we are going to have to make the choice between putting a higher tariff on foreign steel and protecting our industries or allowing our steel industries to go broke. One could make the argument that the lack of a native steel industry is a blow to national security. If our nation were to enter a prolonged conventional war or face some sort of massive diaster, it would be hard to come up with a large quantity of steel quickly. Remember, the Founding Fathers wanted the US Government to be funded purely through tariffs of foreign goods. I think a far greater threat to the average American is the income tax, which both invades privacy and takes grossly unproportional amounts of money from different social classes.
Another one of the sad realities of foriegn affairs is the fact that if we don't stick up for the interests of American business, then another country will step in and take the opportunity. Oil is an important part of our economy, and although this might distress some people, it isn't for our own benefit either. Europe needs oil far more badly than America does, because America has a fairly large supply of domestic production. One of the main reasons we fought Desert Storm was because our European allies need oil just as badly as we do. It's a sad fact that the people in the Middle East happen to sit on such a large natural resource, yet have little political will to exploit it for their own uses. They gladly watch as different Western countries court them with different offers to attain their oil. Yet they are unwilling to invest their vast oil fortunes in native industry that could compete with the West instead of simply supply it. This is an obvious route to development.
I agree that big government is a bad thing in many ways, but on the other had, the political reality is that everyone has a stake in what the government does. Over half of the Federal budget is entitlement programs such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Congress has determined that the Government is willing to pay the medical and personal expenses of retired Americans. Are there other avenues for this money that make more sense? Yes. Are old people going to vote for them? No. Fear mongering and scare tactics do more to influence too many voters decisions than a hard look at political reality.
The military is often lambasted for spending too much money, but its whole income is less than 20% of the federal budget. The intelligence community as well has come under fire for failing to detect the terrorist threat, but a careful analysis reveals that the intelligence community has been repeatedly been cut in size, and yet tasked with doing a great deal more than they had to deal with in the Cold War years. At the same time, President Clintion issued an Executive Order in 1995 that disallowed the CIA from recruiting informants who were involved in human rights abuses or illeagal activies. So, we not only cut our intelligence services, but we also blinded them as well. One of the unsavory parts of our political reality is that we must use whatever tactics we can to eliminate threats against our national security. We witnessed on September 11th what happens when we let our gaurd down.
I just hope it doesn't happen again before we are more prepared.
You're either blind or trolling. There were entire MOVIES made about the USA's primary interest in the Gulf War being one of oil (eg, Three Kings). If even moronic Hollywood script writers can figure it out then it's hardly a big secret.
Hayek (no c, BTW) also pointed out that wartime is one of the few times when society as a whole really does have an aim (survival and victory) and so as a result government becomes a useful force for organization. Likewise, the reverse is true: when governments assume a great deal of power, they need an enemy to justify their interference in other people's lives. Hitler had the jews, McCarthy had the communists, the Soviets had capitalists, and so forth. This point is also made in 1984 very effectively.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Unfortunately, you appear to be able to see only the decisions that enforce your personal viewpoint, except for the two decisions you cite as against this putative extension of civil rights. Further, you have apparently not done the math-- the vast majority of cases you cite as protective of the Bill of Rights were ruled on before 1980. You have largely ignored that aspect of Supreme Court jurisprudence known colloquially as the "drug war exceptions to the Constitution." Your summation is deceptive is another way-- you do not touch upon the many lower court decisions that the Supremes simply allowed to stand.
The Supreme Court, of late years, has faithfully supported the extra-Constitutional police powers needed to continue this "war." These powers are of necessity extra-Constitutional, because these laws attempt to suppress consenual acts-- in other words, convictions can only be obtained by such Constitutionally suspect methods as anonymous informers, wiretaps, anti-privacy banking regulations, and other restrictions on personal liberty that would have been regarded with horror by most Americans 50 years ago.
It's even more difficult to make the argument you appear to be making-- that Americans are more free than ever before, when you realize that a larger percentage of Americans are in prison than ever before. In fact, we are now the world's foremost jailers, keeping a larger percentage of our population in jail than any other country in the world (with the possible exception of Russia-- opinions and estimates vary.) Your assertion that the vast number of citizens in prison is due to higher crime rates is difficult to defend logically, because incarceration rates have vastly outgained crime rates.
The American justice system is seriously compromised, with almost all power now residing in the hands of prosecutors. The proliferation of laws has made it impossible for the average citizen in trouble with the law to defend himself in the way he might have in the past. Prosecutors decide what charges are brought, and should the citizen be so uppity as to dispute the charges and demand his day in court, he can be sure that every possible charge will be prosecuted against him. Mandatory minimums, which remove sentencing power from judges, intensify this prosecutorial power. If an accused citizen persists in spite of this (very few do) he will find that prosecutors will be able to use the testimony of criminals against him, and these criminals will be rewarded for their testimony by large reductions in their prison sentences.
One of the most insidious attacks on liberty and the rule of law are the RICO statutes, which treat those with only peripheral (or even innocent!) involvement in criminal enterprises as co-conspirators, liable to the same penalties as conspiracy kingpins. For example, two brothers in Georgia are now serving 10 year sentences in a marijuana conspiracy case, because they sold growlights from their garden shop to persons later caught growing marijuana. No evidence was ever introduced to show that they participated in any illegal activities, and no drugs were found in their possession. There are many other horror stories, for anyone who is interested.
Even those who have no sympathy for drug offenders might wish to consider that bad law proliferates and spreads beyond the confines of its original purpose. A man who lives in my area, and his son, went to prison for almost two years because he filled a mudhole in his back yard without seeking the proper regulatory permits.
The war against terrorism is similar to the war against drugs in that it is an open-ended conflict which can easily be defined as never-ending. In fact, it is very dangerous to define the government's anti-terrorist activities as a "war." It should be regarded as simply a criminal matter, for many good reasons unrelated to the opportunistic attacks now being mounted against our remaining civil liberties. But I'm not optimistic that common sense will prevail. The trend in America is toward the limitation of freedoms. The events of 9/11 will only accelerate that trend.