Perhaps, but the Supreme Court (most recently in Ex Parte Quirin,
and two hundred years of precedent,
going back to the detention of French port saboteurs by Jefferson and
Madison, disagrees with you.
In other words, you are the one proposing a drastic change in the
law, not Bush. That's a perfectly valid thing for you to do, I suppose, but
then you had better approach the problem as such, and present articles for
the change you think should be made.
Before you argue that a declared war is needed for detention of POWs, though,
ask yourself the following: `should we not have been able to detain any POWs
caught in the attack on Pearl Harbor, had their been any, because they were
caught the day before war was declared?'
Umm, no. The government felt that there was enough doubt whether
Abdul Hamid (born John Walker Lindh) had intended to conspire with
al-Qaeda that they handed the matter over to the courts to decide.
In the cases of al-Muhajir and Yasser Hamdi, caught actively fighting
in Afghanistan, there was no such doubt.
Looks like you didn't read the post you are responding to at all.
In Ex Parte Quirin,
the Supreme Court ruled that Nazi infiltrators caught in the US did not
cease being enemy combatants simply because they were caught here.
So please, go read the post you just responded to, then respond if you
have something on-topic to say.
The problem with that argument is that it has also been the law of the land,
since the earliest days of this republic, that prisoners of war are not criminal
suspects, but fall in a different category.
This includes enemy soldiers acting within the United States, even if they legally
have citizenship. As early as the Jefferson and Madison administrations, this fact was used to
detain port saboteurs working in the service of the French government.
So this is not a new practice, and indeed, it is a practice which the Supreme Court
has upheld for two centuries. This most recently came to the test during World
War II, when a team of German saboteurs were landed from Submarine on Long Island,
with a mission to plant bombs in power plants, industrial centers, and Jewish-owned
businesses. They were caught, and held as prisoners of war, and the Supreme Court
was asked to review this detention, as one of those caught was a US citizen who had
travelled to Germany in the thirties in order to join the SS.
The Supreme Court ruled that their detention was lawful, as their intention to commit acts of war against
the US made them enemy combatants, not criminal suspects. You can find more information
on the case, named Ex Parte Quirin, including a transcript of the court's ruling in
this journal entry.
So in short, this is not, as you suggest, a new practice, nor is it, as you also suggest,
against the intent of the Constitution (something that Madison, who employed the practice
himself as president, presumably knew a thing or two about).
So, in other words, you feel we should judge scientific work not by whether
its methods are valid, but by whether its conclusions meet our pre-formed
political conceptions.
Noted and (sheepishly) logged. You are explaining that because even in full sarcasm mode,
you didn't manage to sound less rational then some of the posts made in all serious
to a number of/. environment threads.
Interesting. So you believe (heck, you come out and say) that
even if the environmentalists are wrong on an issue, we should lie and
say that they are right, in order to help their political cause?
Given that you say you believe in lying for your cause, you understand
why I don't believe anything else you say, right?
Do you have any evidence for your claim that some of
the most established figures in the Swedish environment movement
are actually working for `the corporations'? (Which corporations?
Since when? What evidence contradicts their conclusions?)
Did it cross your mind that someone could wish to preserve the environment,
but not agree that current attempts to do so are the right way to go?
Or do you automatically consider someone to be in ill will if they don't agree
with you one hundred percent?
Thanks for clarifying that. Whether Echelon is a good idea is certainly debatable, but why do you
put scare quotes around `war on terrorism'? Do you think we are not under attack by terrorists? Or
do you think we are not waging a war to prevent further attacks?
The families of the people killed in Manhattan, Washington, Pennsylvania, Bali, Kenya, or any of dozens
of other attacks can certainly confirm that we are under attack, and the ongoing efforts to catch those
like KSM who are attacking us, and to deny the terrorists access to state sponsors suggests that we
are in fact at war...
Which part of `arguably' did you not understand -- the original poster is directly
entertaining the idea that the attacks were justified, so he should clarify his
position.
To the extent that the people who planned 9/11 were `oppressed' (remember, Atta and company
were children of wealthy families, who studied abroad in Germany, had no trouble coming to
the US, and so forth, and bin Laden is, of course, a millionaire many times over), they were
oppressed by their own societies, which don't offer free speech, the right to vote, privacy,
or any of the concerns people are voicing in this story or this thread.
So tell us: are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 were justified or
acceptable? Really?
Or rather, you could keep some tin-pot military dictator in palaces and arms for
the rest of his life, but assuming this could be avoided, your point is still well made.
Go read the article. The loonies are raising concerns
about the cat's consent -- or did you think that vets were sneaking into
people's houses and operating on their cats without their consent?
Of course, Russell also said ``I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.'' --
and given that he was also a leading proponent of the policy of appeasement in the years
before World War II, interrupting his pacifism only briefly, when in the late forties
he called for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, before reverting to calls
for unilateral disarmament on the part of the west, it's a good thing too...
A wide range of claims have been made about
the Mitnick case. It is clear that some of them may be true,
and it is equally clear that some of them are false (never got
a bail hearing? Do you really believe that? How do you suppose
that he was convicted, if he was never arraigned?)
If you want to claim that he was treated unconstitutionally, however,
some authority better than an unsubstantiated allegation by a/. AC
would do your argument well. Likewise, it's not a strong argument
in favor of the claim that hackers are sentenced harshly that their
own defense lawyers think so.
Maybe your criticism is remarkably overwrought (the Dark Ages?!).
Maybe they didn't provide any evidence to backup their claims, especially, for example,
about the percentage of cases which are company-internal, or about relative sentences.
Maybe they are enough of an interested party that there is strong reason to believe that
`they would say that', whether it was the case or not.
Maybe if you want to claim that due process and constitutional rights are being violated,
you should provide evidence (especially as the report discussed in the article does not
claim this).
Wait, a large group of defense lawyers said that penalties are too tough for the
types of cases they sometimes work on? Really?! Now why would they do that?
</sarcasm>
I'm pretty amused that you presume to tell people what they do or don't need, and
what should or shouldn't be cheap. I'm even more amused that you take your own opinion
about what should be overpriced as a defense of your own inflated salary.
Quite seriously: why is your `right' to an inflated salary more important than the benefit
to many more people than just you of lowered prices of groceries or growth in their 401k plans?
After all, that's the point here -- you're arguing that you should be paid more than others are
willing to do your job for. Tell us why this should be so, given that a higher salary for you means
higher prices and lower investment returns for many others?
Says you -- I would point out that when a supermarket chain decides to automate their checkout
system, the more they pay for that software development, the more you pay for groceries. If
Windows does not get cheaper as it gets cheaper to develop, this is a sign of a dangerous lack
of competition, not a sign that you should be overpayed.
Point: you receive a lot more than others are willing to do your job for.
Point: this makes the products you make more expensive for everyone.
Point: I'm nothing near a libertarian, as you'd know if you'd read my journal, or, hey,
even looked at my login name.
Point: your insistence on relying on insults and insinuations instead of providing a single justification why you should be payed
more to do a job which others are willing to do for less does your position no credit.
In other words, you want to continue to receive an inflated salary, you
don't care that doing so prevents improvements which the market could
bring about in the standard of living of yourself and many others, and
you don't have arguments why this is a good idea, only insults.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but the Supreme Court (most recently in Ex Parte Quirin, and two hundred years of precedent, going back to the detention of French port saboteurs by Jefferson and Madison, disagrees with you.
In other words, you are the one proposing a drastic change in the law, not Bush. That's a perfectly valid thing for you to do, I suppose, but then you had better approach the problem as such, and present articles for the change you think should be made.
Before you argue that a declared war is needed for detention of POWs, though, ask yourself the following: `should we not have been able to detain any POWs caught in the attack on Pearl Harbor, had their been any, because they were caught the day before war was declared?'
Umm, no. The government felt that there was enough doubt whether Abdul Hamid (born John Walker Lindh) had intended to conspire with al-Qaeda that they handed the matter over to the courts to decide.
In the cases of al-Muhajir and Yasser Hamdi, caught actively fighting in Afghanistan, there was no such doubt.
Thank you, well put.
Looks like you didn't read the post you are responding to at all.
In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court ruled that Nazi infiltrators caught in the US did not cease being enemy combatants simply because they were caught here.
So please, go read the post you just responded to, then respond if you have something on-topic to say.
The problem with that argument is that it has also been the law of the land, since the earliest days of this republic, that prisoners of war are not criminal suspects, but fall in a different category.
This includes enemy soldiers acting within the United States, even if they legally have citizenship. As early as the Jefferson and Madison administrations, this fact was used to detain port saboteurs working in the service of the French government.
So this is not a new practice, and indeed, it is a practice which the Supreme Court has upheld for two centuries. This most recently came to the test during World War II, when a team of German saboteurs were landed from Submarine on Long Island, with a mission to plant bombs in power plants, industrial centers, and Jewish-owned businesses. They were caught, and held as prisoners of war, and the Supreme Court was asked to review this detention, as one of those caught was a US citizen who had travelled to Germany in the thirties in order to join the SS.
The Supreme Court ruled that their detention was lawful, as their intention to commit acts of war against the US made them enemy combatants, not criminal suspects. You can find more information on the case, named Ex Parte Quirin, including a transcript of the court's ruling in this journal entry.
So in short, this is not, as you suggest, a new practice, nor is it, as you also suggest, against the intent of the Constitution (something that Madison, who employed the practice himself as president, presumably knew a thing or two about).
So, in other words, you feel we should judge scientific work not by whether its methods are valid, but by whether its conclusions meet our pre-formed political conceptions.
Very interesting.
Quite right. See also my response to the next comment.
Noted and (sheepishly) logged. You are explaining that because even in full sarcasm mode, you didn't manage to sound less rational then some of the posts made in all serious to a number of /. environment threads.
Consider my post withdrawn. :-)
Interesting. So you believe (heck, you come out and say) that even if the environmentalists are wrong on an issue, we should lie and say that they are right, in order to help their political cause?
Given that you say you believe in lying for your cause, you understand why I don't believe anything else you say, right?
Do you have any evidence for your claim that some of the most established figures in the Swedish environment movement are actually working for `the corporations'? (Which corporations? Since when? What evidence contradicts their conclusions?)
Did it cross your mind that someone could wish to preserve the environment, but not agree that current attempts to do so are the right way to go?
Or do you automatically consider someone to be in ill will if they don't agree with you one hundred percent?
Thanks for clarifying that. Whether Echelon is a good idea is certainly debatable, but why do you put scare quotes around `war on terrorism'? Do you think we are not under attack by terrorists? Or do you think we are not waging a war to prevent further attacks?
The families of the people killed in Manhattan, Washington, Pennsylvania, Bali, Kenya, or any of dozens of other attacks can certainly confirm that we are under attack, and the ongoing efforts to catch those like KSM who are attacking us, and to deny the terrorists access to state sponsors suggests that we are in fact at war...
Which part of `arguably' did you not understand -- the original poster is directly entertaining the idea that the attacks were justified, so he should clarify his position.
To the extent that the people who planned 9/11 were `oppressed' (remember, Atta and company were children of wealthy families, who studied abroad in Germany, had no trouble coming to the US, and so forth, and bin Laden is, of course, a millionaire many times over), they were oppressed by their own societies, which don't offer free speech, the right to vote, privacy, or any of the concerns people are voicing in this story or this thread.
So tell us: are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 were justified or acceptable? Really?
Or rather, you could keep some tin-pot military dictator in palaces and arms for the rest of his life, but assuming this could be avoided, your point is still well made.
Go read the article. The loonies are raising concerns about the cat's consent -- or did you think that vets were sneaking into people's houses and operating on their cats without their consent?
Of course, Russell also said ``I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.'' -- and given that he was also a leading proponent of the policy of appeasement in the years before World War II, interrupting his pacifism only briefly, when in the late forties he called for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, before reverting to calls for unilateral disarmament on the part of the west, it's a good thing too...
A wide range of claims have been made about the Mitnick case. It is clear that some of them may be true, and it is equally clear that some of them are false (never got a bail hearing? Do you really believe that? How do you suppose that he was convicted, if he was never arraigned?)
If you want to claim that he was treated unconstitutionally, however, some authority better than an unsubstantiated allegation by a /. AC
would do your argument well. Likewise, it's not a strong argument
in favor of the claim that hackers are sentenced harshly that their
own defense lawyers think so.
`You read somewhere'?
Maybe your criticism is remarkably overwrought (the Dark Ages?!).
Maybe they didn't provide any evidence to backup their claims, especially, for example, about the percentage of cases which are company-internal, or about relative sentences.
Maybe they are enough of an interested party that there is strong reason to believe that `they would say that', whether it was the case or not.
Maybe if you want to claim that due process and constitutional rights are being violated, you should provide evidence (especially as the report discussed in the article does not claim this).
Wait, a large group of defense lawyers said that penalties are too tough for the types of cases they sometimes work on? Really?! Now why would they do that? </sarcasm>
Indeed. There's an excellent book called Blood and Water: Sabotaging Hitler's Bomb about the long-running project to sabotage Norsk Hydro.
I'm pretty amused that you presume to tell people what they do or don't need, and what should or shouldn't be cheap. I'm even more amused that you take your own opinion about what should be overpriced as a defense of your own inflated salary.
Quite seriously: why is your `right' to an inflated salary more important than the benefit to many more people than just you of lowered prices of groceries or growth in their 401k plans?
After all, that's the point here -- you're arguing that you should be paid more than others are willing to do your job for. Tell us why this should be so, given that a higher salary for you means higher prices and lower investment returns for many others?
Says you -- I would point out that when a supermarket chain decides to automate their checkout system, the more they pay for that software development, the more you pay for groceries. If Windows does not get cheaper as it gets cheaper to develop, this is a sign of a dangerous lack of competition, not a sign that you should be overpayed.
Point: you receive a lot more than others are willing to do your job for.
Point: this makes the products you make more expensive for everyone.
Point: I'm nothing near a libertarian, as you'd know if you'd read my journal, or, hey, even looked at my login name.
Point: your insistence on relying on insults and insinuations instead of providing a single justification why you should be payed more to do a job which others are willing to do for less does your position no credit.
Yes, yes, do go on.
In other words, you want to continue to receive an inflated salary, you don't care that doing so prevents improvements which the market could bring about in the standard of living of yourself and many others, and you don't have arguments why this is a good idea, only insults.
Forgive me if I'm not impressed...