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.
IAAA (I am an American), but I don't understand why we are at war--especially with Afghanistan. We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility. It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes. Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks. He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence. The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times; meanwhile, Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer). Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening? Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest. We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...), while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--as an air base for our troop transports, just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam (search on google.com for Bo Gritz if this doesn't ring a bell).
Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority. This wasn't in the EULA. I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
FA Hayeck (bigtime libertarian dude) acknowledged that the law may be suspended in times of war. The basic idea is that if you lose everything, then what was the point of playing by the rules. This comes with a _VERY BIG_ but, namely that once order is restored, the government is held responsible for the laws it violated. This isn't to say everyone is put on trial, but they should be required to compensate (how they compensate is left vague) the citizens who were violated.
This is a very sensible view, IMO, but the compensation part is tricky. Especially because once peace is restored, tempers & public sentiment are still running hot and the public (read: voters and hence representatives) may not be in a compassionate mood.
-spRed
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that helps out natural disaster victims and so forth, is actually part of a martial law government in waiting. Under Jimmy Carter's 1979 consolidation of various related agencies into FEMA, it acquired the Defense Department's Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. With the end of the Cold War this aspect of its mission has probably taken a back seat to floods, earthquakes and huricanes. But the capability is still there.
The government of the United States was created to uphold several principles; these are enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution. (C'mon, everybody, sing it with me! "We the PEEEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union..." Yeah, that.)
Generally, we've found that following the procedures outlined in the Constitution is the most effective way to do this. However, our history shows that sometimes, disobeying the law is the right way. The case for the government itself doing this can be found in the words of several presidents, Lincoln and FDR being the most prominent examples. The case for individuals is effectively laid out by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," and in the works of Martin Luther King Jr.
If the constitution is not in effect at all times, then what is the point?
Will work for bandwidth
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this:
THE FIRST is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
THE SECOND is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR
I believe Juanita
"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort to institutions which have the tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they are at length willing to run the risk of being less free.... It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of legislative authority."
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8, 1787.
(For those who don't know, the federalist papers were written in support of ratification of the constitution by some of the very people who wrote the constitution itself.)
Can I have some examples of increased civil liberties?
Lost Rights, a book by James Bovard, is long, thorough, dry, and depressing collection of the MANY losses and attacks on civil liberties.
I could go on, but the point I want to make is this: from what I can tell, we have been experiencing a net decrease in rights... If you could point to me to info that shows otherwise, I would happily read that, too.
I agree with one thing, there are big benefits at stake, and England, Germany and France very much like to be part of the game. Italy being the sulking outsider.
,Bondsteel, Cheney, Carlyse, Bush , Caspian oil, Unocal, Macedonia, KLA, NLA, MPRI, KPC, OSCE,William Walker, Afghanistan, heroin, drugs, Oliver North, Vinnell Corporation, Dyncorp, soros.
:)
Here is my homework :
The Caspian oil basin is a very important one.
Cheney , as CEO of Halliburton in 1998:"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian". Estimates have only been rising since.
but actually the whole of central asia is involved. I read that Wolfowitz is very much in favor of grabbing all of it and stripping Russia bare.
A big problem with the caspian and central asian resources is getting them out through a safe way. There are in several possible corridors.
- Iran is shortest, but boycotted in every possible way.
- The corridor to Turkey is difficult to secure.
- China is more than 2000 miles.
- The corridor to kosovo is an interesting issue, because the US has been very active in the Balkan conflicts, using NATO as a front, and secured the pipeline(see fort Bondsteel) and the public did not even notice what was going on. Macedonia is needed too in the plan, and underway. The US strategy in the Balkan deserves a lot of attention.
For one thing, the unrestrained free traffic of Afghan heroin through Kosovo increases financing of opposition in Russian border states like Chechnya.
- The Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor is best known for the Unocal line in construction, which has been interrupted in Afghanistan since i think 1998(that was the year they asked government for help).
But Afghanistan is also a starting point for moving north. Russian sources are afraid(well, to be honest , i only found one) that the US will try to drive a mass of refugees north, use it to destabilise the region and create an alibi to intervene with NATO. British and US diplomacy already requested Pakistan to keep the borders closed(I think, can't remember the source right now). I guess they did not need much pressing.
For this you need weak humanitarian aid inside Afghanistan.
The only mobile troops of Russia are being pinned down in Chechnya, and Bin Laden does not seem to have control there. Hoe much reason will US need to move north?
As is well known, not everyone thinks international approval is necessary.
If you feel like a very long google session, each time take 2 or 3 words at random from:
Halliburton, Brown and Root, AMBO
That bang you just heard is from a surveillance server that just blew up
The web, real educational at times. And addictive too
Read the original article here
Date: September 27, 2001
Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 Bush's Orwellian Address Happy New Year: It's 1984 by Jacob Levich
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Busheffectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya. No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.
The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.
And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.
He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better.
By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:
WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.
It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is an writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York.