I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes [electronicintifada.net]
Now, what is it about linking to a site which describes Louis Farrakhan as `wise' and `balanced', which
endorses murder-suicide bombings, and which rushed to repeat Arafat's lies that there was a massacre at Jenin,
but claims they never said so now that Arafat admits that there was not which you think will make people agree
with you?
Read up on RICO -- prior to USA PATRIOT, one of the few exceptions to the lack of information sharing between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies were mafia families, due to their extensive use of foreign safe houses and multinational schemes.
USA PATRIOT extends these practices (which were already ruled constitutional as part of RICO) to organized terror organizations for the same reason.
To repeat what I said before, USA PATRIOT did two main things: first, it extended to organized terrorism practices which had already been ruled constitutional (and codified in law by RICO) decades earlier against organized crime, and second, it reversed voluntary restrictions on actions by the executive branch which that branch had adopted after the Church Commission hearings, and which that branch could already have dropped at any time.
Do we need it? That's certainly a question where there is room for lively debate -- I happen to think that not employing tactics against al Qaeda which we are already employing against the mafia, and which have already passed constitutional muster would be a mistake, and potentially a very constly one, with the price measured in lives.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the case is in court as we speak -- the question being debated has more to do with the standard of proof needed to hold someone.
In the past, courts have upheld a relatively low burden of proof in such cases -- there were a spate of cases similar to Quirin at different points. Mr. al-Muhajir's lawyer is arguing that a higher standard should be required, which is a reasonable request to make.
The judge will decide. If either side disagrees with the judge's decision, there will be an appeal. That's how the system works.
You make a lot of claims about USA PATRIOT here, none of which you back up with language from the act, but more generally, you don't explain how a bill which only extends to organized terrorism practices which were already ruled constitutional when they were employed against organized crime by the Kennedys forty years ago could be considered a new restriction on your rights.
The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity.
Something which it could always do, but voluntarily refrained from doing (a mistake) after the Church Committee hearings. At no point was this illegal. It's important to note that what we are discussing here is observation of public announcements such as newspaper articles, web sites, and public speeches -- before this policy change, for example, it was against the rules for an FBI agent looking for al Qaeda to type `al Qaeda' into Google.
The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation.
Simply untrue. See the more extended discussion of this claim in the
journal entry linked above.
The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation.
No, the government may seek a gag order from a judge in such cases, something which was already extensively done in RICO cases.
The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients,
After notifying the suspect, with the supervision of a judge, etc. -- but this is a practice that began long before USA PATRIOT (and in fact USA PATRIOT says nothing on the matter), and, again, has been used in organized crime cases for decades -- just ask John Gotti's lawyer.
and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Again, simply untrue. No American accused of a crime can be (or has been) denied a lawyer. Americans accused of waging war against the country can be held until the end of hostilities without being charged (see below), but this is a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in 1942.
The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
This is the same charge as the previous one, and is equally untrue.
The government has closed once-public immigration hearings,
Something which could already be done (and was in a number of cases). Immigration to this country is a privilege, not a right, and the Constitution provides no guarantee that immigration hearings will be public.
secretly detained hundreds of people without charges
Not true -- provide a cite for this.
and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Again, provide a cite for this.
The difference of course is we were at war in 1942.
Go read the decision in Quirin, which is linked above. The power to detain those caught attacking the US does not depend on a declared war being in effect, for reasons which should be obvious -- by your logic, had we captured any Japanese pilots during the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would have had to release them, since we did not declare war until the following day.
More generally speaking, the vast majority of the wars the US has fought in, from Jefferson's campaign against the Barbary Pirates through the Gulf War were not declared wars in the sense you discuss. Are you seriously suggesting that this means we did not take prisoners of war in any of them?
Well, Mr. al-Muhajir is right now receiving a hearing in a New York courtroom
to determine if the government has enough evidence to hold him as a combatant --
if they can't convince a federal judge that they do, he will be remanded to civilian
custody, where he will have all the rights accorded to those accused of crimes
in civilian jurisdiction, including the right to be charged with a crime within
48 hours, or else released.
We can argue about whether this is how the system should work, but it cannot reasonably be claimed
either that this is something new (as it has been practiced as long as the republic has
existed, and was upheld by the Supreme Court sixty years ago), or that this is out of
line with the intent of the founders (as both Jefferson and Madison, the authors of the Declaration
of Independence and the Bill of Rights respectively) used this authority to imprison port
saboteurs working with French and British privateers during their terms as president.
Abdullah al-Muhajir (you don't call Muhammad Ali `Cassius Clay', do you?) is being held as
an enemy combatant, something which has nothing at all to do with USA PATRIOT. It's not anything
new, either -- those waging war on the US, including US citizens, have been subject to military jurisdiction
since the earliest days of this republic, a practice which was upheld most recently in the 1942
US Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quirin.
See this journal entry for details on the Supreme Court's ruling in Quirin.
Actually, I welcome you to provide even a single example of how you believe USA PATRIOT
has violated the US Constitution -- show me one right you had on before USA PATRIOT was
passed which you feel it has taken away.
But before you do so, check out this journal entry --
no one has yet been able to do so, so please don't repeat attempts already found there.
Whether he should have veto'ed some of the laws which he's signed is a separate question -- there are certainly
things which have passed which I would have preferred to see a veto-fight over.
Actually, it's funny how people make claims like that without actually reading the
Constitution they claim to be interpreting.
The US Constitution says very clearly, in Article II, Section 1, that the manner of
electing the president in a given state shall be decided by the legislature of
that state. This is a federal responsibility of the state legislatures.
This means that if another branch of state government, such as the state executive or
the state supreme court (as in this case, with SCOFLA) attempts to change the election
rules, they are infringing on federal jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of the US has
to step in.
Remember -- seven of the nine justices agreed that SCOFLA overreached their jurisdiction.
The only serious disagreement was as to the remedy (with five of nine justices ruling that
the remedy appointed by the SCOFLA should not be carried out).
Read the report -- snopes.com has found no evidence backing one claim or the other (that
this was an act of prudery or that this was just an attempt to get a nice backdrop for
press conferences). This means that we can either take Maureen Dowd's word for it, or the
word of the Justice Department -- and since Ms. Dowd has given no indication that she
has any source to back her claims, why would we take her word on it?
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's -- she
hardly has a reputation for journalistic integrity (anyone who doubts that can start by
reading the article User 956 links)...
It's also not clear why you think pointing out that Mr. Ashcroft himself doesn't spend much time
worrying about his press coverage contradicts my statement that the decision to place a plain-color
backdrop behind him when he speaks was made by his press assistant without his input, by the way --
if anything it backs up my point.
An interesting smear, but you are aware that Bush has spoken strongly in favor of
a strict `original intent' interpretation of the Constitution, and against such
word games, right?
This is one of the largest factors differentiating the current administration from the previous
one, by the way.
It is certainly correct that there can be long-standing disagreements
over the Founders' intent -- that's why we need a Supreme Court, so that
such disagreements can be resolved.
If we move to a system where the Constitution is a `living document', however,
any disagreement over the law is grounds for court action, however, and
chaos ensues.
To use the current case as an example, it is pretty clear that there is room for argument
as to what the Founders meant by a `limited Times' when they said
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
but it is equally clear that an argument that the Constitution has to `evolve' to `meet the times'
by interpreting `for limited Times' as `forever' would be out of line.
Yes, that is what I am denying. If you've actually seen the backdrop,
you'd realize that it doesn't specifically cover the statue -- it's a standard
aluminum-tubing-and-curtain blue screen placed behind the
podium when a press conference is given.
Snopes.com, the indispensable Urban Legends reference site, has some discussion of the
matter here, and
here's Jay Nordlinger on the subject, from this article
in National Review:
The war aside, this AG has been swimming in bad raps. Maybe the baddest of them all has been Breastgate. Surely you are familiar with the statues that live in the Great Hall of the Justice Department: the Spirit of Justice (a lady) and the Majesty of Law (a gent). (Spirit has a nickname, by the way: Minnie Lou.) Because these statues are partially nude, they are noticed only during conservative Republican administrations. Minnie Lou and her one exposed breast became famous when photographers gleefully took their picture with Ed Meese, as he announced President Reagan's report on pornography back in the mid 1980s. The presence of the Breast was thought to have "stepped on" the administration's "message." Washington liberals are still yukking about that one today.
The Breast was pretty quiet during the eight years of Janet Reno. As one peeved administration official puts it, "No cameraman was ever at Reno's feet, trying to get a shot of her with that thing." But Minnie Lou's outstanding feature stormed back with Ashcroft. When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely . made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.
An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did . without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.
But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it . as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.
And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable.
Not necessarily -- the government's initial briefs in this case were
filed by the previous administration (back then the case was called Eldred v. Reno
-- as the AG represents the US as the `involved party' in Supreme Court cases, the current AG's name
is always used.
Standing policy is for an administration not to back down from a case filed by a previous
administration without making a strong case for doing so. This is a case where that policy
should not have been followed.
Sigh, this one keeps being repeated, even though the Washington Post story
that it comes from has been completely discredited.
I know that a press assistant putting a blue cloth backdrop behind the AG when he speaks to provide
better photos isn't as funny a story, but hey, the truth isn't always as amusing as fiction.
This is a very good point -- and is an example of why it is so important
to have strict constructivist judges on the Supreme Court. As long as it is
understood that the Founders meant something by the words they put on paper,
it is possible to say that the law means something. There may still be plenty
of disagreements as to what the Founders meant, but they can generally be
resolved. When the Constitution does need to `evolve', or `change', this can
be done through the mechanism the Founders provided for it to do so -- Constitutional
Ammendments.
In contrast, if we take the increasingly common, but frightening, view that the
Constitution is a `living document', whose meaning `evolves' with the times, then
the Constitution can be constantly reinterpreted to mean whatever each generation
of judges think it would be best for society for it to mean.
Some may be willing to trust that this reinterpretation will always be done honestly, without reference
to special interests, ideological aims, or corrupt goals, but IMHO it is much better
for the stability of our system of government that we not make such trust the basis
of the rule of law.
Yup. It's actually even worse than this, because the treaty explicitly prohibits
any court review of the extradition. Whereas before the treaty, someone being extradited
from Britain to Greece for something illegal in both nations would be entitled to a court
hearing to determine (in Britain) if the request was valid, now not only could he be
extradited for something not illegal in Britain, this extradition would have to be
done immediately and without court review of any sort.
Live in Italy and violate thew (very strict) British libel laws? Go straight to a British
courtroom, with no review of this by Italian officials. Put up a web site in England violating
the (again quite strict) Italian blasphemy laws? Go straight to an Italian court, even if you've
never set foot in Italy in your life.
Actually, there's no such thing as `wage slavery' in the US today (nor has been
for a very long time, if there ever was).
Even if we keep rhw argument on your own terms, workers in the US have more social mobility, a better
standard of living, and more opportunity than any people has in the history of the world.
Generally, the history of the US has been toward greater individual freedom, yes.
But that's not the point here at all -- the point is that allegations that future laws may erode your rights is not an argument against the lawful enforcement of existing laws, which is what we have in this case.
Umm, hello? So your point is that On*Star should be illegal?
Remember, the car in question was a stolen car. The rightful owner had On*Star installed so that if it was stolen it could be tracked. Are you seriously arguing that he had no right to do so?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. They also killed more Vietnamese in the first three years of `peace' than had died in the entire previous twenty-five years of war...
I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes [electronicintifada.net]
Now, what is it about linking to a site which describes Louis Farrakhan as `wise' and `balanced', which endorses murder-suicide bombings, and which rushed to repeat Arafat's lies that there was a massacre at Jenin, but claims they never said so now that Arafat admits that there was not which you think will make people agree with you?
USA PATRIOT extends these practices (which were already ruled constitutional as part of RICO) to organized terror organizations for the same reason.
To repeat what I said before, USA PATRIOT did two main things: first, it extended to organized terrorism practices which had already been ruled constitutional (and codified in law by RICO) decades earlier against organized crime, and second, it reversed voluntary restrictions on actions by the executive branch which that branch had adopted after the Church Commission hearings, and which that branch could already have dropped at any time.
Do we need it? That's certainly a question where there is room for lively debate -- I happen to think that not employing tactics against al Qaeda which we are already employing against the mafia, and which have already passed constitutional muster would be a mistake, and potentially a very constly one, with the price measured in lives.
In the past, courts have upheld a relatively low burden of proof in such cases -- there were a spate of cases similar to Quirin at different points. Mr. al-Muhajir's lawyer is arguing that a higher standard should be required, which is a reasonable request to make.
The judge will decide. If either side disagrees with the judge's decision, there will be an appeal. That's how the system works.
You make a lot of claims about USA PATRIOT here, none of which you back up with language from the act, but more generally, you don't explain how a bill which only extends to organized terrorism practices which were already ruled constitutional when they were employed against organized crime by the Kennedys forty years ago could be considered a new restriction on your rights.
The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity.
Something which it could always do, but voluntarily refrained from doing (a mistake) after the Church Committee hearings. At no point was this illegal. It's important to note that what we are discussing here is observation of public announcements such as newspaper articles, web sites, and public speeches -- before this policy change, for example, it was against the rules for an FBI agent looking for al Qaeda to type `al Qaeda' into Google.
The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation.
Simply untrue. See the more extended discussion of this claim in the journal entry linked above.
The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation.
No, the government may seek a gag order from a judge in such cases, something which was already extensively done in RICO cases.
The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients,
After notifying the suspect, with the supervision of a judge, etc. -- but this is a practice that began long before USA PATRIOT (and in fact USA PATRIOT says nothing on the matter), and, again, has been used in organized crime cases for decades -- just ask John Gotti's lawyer.
and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Again, simply untrue. No American accused of a crime can be (or has been) denied a lawyer. Americans accused of waging war against the country can be held until the end of hostilities without being charged (see below), but this is a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in 1942.
The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
This is the same charge as the previous one, and is equally untrue.
The government has closed once-public immigration hearings,
Something which could already be done (and was in a number of cases). Immigration to this country is a privilege, not a right, and the Constitution provides no guarantee that immigration hearings will be public.
secretly detained hundreds of people without charges
Not true -- provide a cite for this.
and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Again, provide a cite for this.
The difference of course is we were at war in 1942.
Go read the decision in Quirin, which is linked above. The power to detain those caught attacking the US does not depend on a declared war being in effect, for reasons which should be obvious -- by your logic, had we captured any Japanese pilots during the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would have had to release them, since we did not declare war until the following day.
More generally speaking, the vast majority of the wars the US has fought in, from Jefferson's campaign against the Barbary Pirates through the Gulf War were not declared wars in the sense you discuss. Are you seriously suggesting that this means we did not take prisoners of war in any of them?
Well, Mr. al-Muhajir is right now receiving a hearing in a New York courtroom to determine if the government has enough evidence to hold him as a combatant -- if they can't convince a federal judge that they do, he will be remanded to civilian custody, where he will have all the rights accorded to those accused of crimes in civilian jurisdiction, including the right to be charged with a crime within 48 hours, or else released.
We can argue about whether this is how the system should work, but it cannot reasonably be claimed either that this is something new (as it has been practiced as long as the republic has existed, and was upheld by the Supreme Court sixty years ago), or that this is out of line with the intent of the founders (as both Jefferson and Madison, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights respectively) used this authority to imprison port saboteurs working with French and British privateers during their terms as president.
Actually, no.
Abdullah al-Muhajir (you don't call Muhammad Ali `Cassius Clay', do you?) is being held as an enemy combatant, something which has nothing at all to do with USA PATRIOT. It's not anything new, either -- those waging war on the US, including US citizens, have been subject to military jurisdiction since the earliest days of this republic, a practice which was upheld most recently in the 1942 US Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quirin.
See this journal entry for details on the Supreme Court's ruling in Quirin.
Actually, I welcome you to provide even a single example of how you believe USA PATRIOT has violated the US Constitution -- show me one right you had on before USA PATRIOT was passed which you feel it has taken away.
But before you do so, check out this journal entry -- no one has yet been able to do so, so please don't repeat attempts already found there.
Whether he should have veto'ed some of the laws which he's signed is a separate question -- there are certainly things which have passed which I would have preferred to see a veto-fight over.
Actually, it's funny how people make claims like that without actually reading the Constitution they claim to be interpreting.
The US Constitution says very clearly, in Article II, Section 1, that the manner of electing the president in a given state shall be decided by the legislature of that state. This is a federal responsibility of the state legislatures.
This means that if another branch of state government, such as the state executive or the state supreme court (as in this case, with SCOFLA) attempts to change the election rules, they are infringing on federal jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of the US has to step in.
Remember -- seven of the nine justices agreed that SCOFLA overreached their jurisdiction. The only serious disagreement was as to the remedy (with five of nine justices ruling that the remedy appointed by the SCOFLA should not be carried out).
Read the report -- snopes.com has found no evidence backing one claim or the other (that this was an act of prudery or that this was just an attempt to get a nice backdrop for press conferences). This means that we can either take Maureen Dowd's word for it, or the word of the Justice Department -- and since Ms. Dowd has given no indication that she has any source to back her claims, why would we take her word on it?
As even NR admits, this urban legend will never die -- you guys are just too determined to hold on to it, and facts (or even logic) be damned...
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll take snopes.com's word over Maureen Dowd's -- she hardly has a reputation for journalistic integrity (anyone who doubts that can start by reading the article User 956 links)...
It's also not clear why you think pointing out that Mr. Ashcroft himself doesn't spend much time worrying about his press coverage contradicts my statement that the decision to place a plain-color backdrop behind him when he speaks was made by his press assistant without his input, by the way -- if anything it backs up my point.
An interesting smear, but you are aware that Bush has spoken strongly in favor of a strict `original intent' interpretation of the Constitution, and against such word games, right?
This is one of the largest factors differentiating the current administration from the previous one, by the way.
It is certainly correct that there can be long-standing disagreements over the Founders' intent -- that's why we need a Supreme Court, so that such disagreements can be resolved. If we move to a system where the Constitution is a `living document', however, any disagreement over the law is grounds for court action, however, and chaos ensues.
To use the current case as an example, it is pretty clear that there is room for argument as to what the Founders meant by a `limited Times' when they said
but it is equally clear that an argument that the Constitution has to `evolve' to `meet the times' by interpreting `for limited Times' as `forever' would be out of line.rm -rf /bin/laden
Or maybe:
?Yes, that is what I am denying. If you've actually seen the backdrop, you'd realize that it doesn't specifically cover the statue -- it's a standard aluminum-tubing-and-curtain blue screen placed behind the podium when a press conference is given.
Snopes.com, the indispensable Urban Legends reference site, has some discussion of the matter here, and here's Jay Nordlinger on the subject, from this article in National Review:
Yup. The current Attorney General is always listed as the defendant in such cases -- indeed this case started out as `Eldred vs. Reno'.
Not necessarily -- the government's initial briefs in this case were filed by the previous administration (back then the case was called Eldred v. Reno -- as the AG represents the US as the `involved party' in Supreme Court cases, the current AG's name is always used.
Standing policy is for an administration not to back down from a case filed by a previous administration without making a strong case for doing so. This is a case where that policy should not have been followed.
Sigh, this one keeps being repeated, even though the Washington Post story that it comes from has been completely discredited.
I know that a press assistant putting a blue cloth backdrop behind the AG when he speaks to provide better photos isn't as funny a story, but hey, the truth isn't always as amusing as fiction.
This is a very good point -- and is an example of why it is so important to have strict constructivist judges on the Supreme Court. As long as it is understood that the Founders meant something by the words they put on paper, it is possible to say that the law means something. There may still be plenty of disagreements as to what the Founders meant, but they can generally be resolved. When the Constitution does need to `evolve', or `change', this can be done through the mechanism the Founders provided for it to do so -- Constitutional Ammendments.
In contrast, if we take the increasingly common, but frightening, view that the Constitution is a `living document', whose meaning `evolves' with the times, then the Constitution can be constantly reinterpreted to mean whatever each generation of judges think it would be best for society for it to mean.
Some may be willing to trust that this reinterpretation will always be done honestly, without reference to special interests, ideological aims, or corrupt goals, but IMHO it is much better for the stability of our system of government that we not make such trust the basis of the rule of law.
Yup. It's actually even worse than this, because the treaty explicitly prohibits any court review of the extradition. Whereas before the treaty, someone being extradited from Britain to Greece for something illegal in both nations would be entitled to a court hearing to determine (in Britain) if the request was valid, now not only could he be extradited for something not illegal in Britain, this extradition would have to be done immediately and without court review of any sort.
Live in Italy and violate thew (very strict) British libel laws? Go straight to a British courtroom, with no review of this by Italian officials. Put up a web site in England violating the (again quite strict) Italian blasphemy laws? Go straight to an Italian court, even if you've never set foot in Italy in your life.
Even if we keep rhw argument on your own terms, workers in the US have more social mobility, a better standard of living, and more opportunity than any people has in the history of the world.
But that's not the point here at all -- the point is that allegations that future laws may erode your rights is not an argument against the lawful enforcement of existing laws, which is what we have in this case.
Remember, the car in question was a stolen car. The rightful owner had On*Star installed so that if it was stolen it could be tracked. Are you seriously arguing that he had no right to do so?