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.
"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...
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.
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.