I think the concept of "Democracy" is misunderstood by many people, including people on this board. There are true, or liberal democracies", and there are illiberal democracies, such as the Republic of Singapore, which are democracies in name only.
But one thing that is a PARAMOUNT for any TRUE democracy is the "Rule of Law". The Rule of Law means "that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law."
It's always easy to defend the laws of our nation when it's considered in one's best interest to do so... but to be a great nation, one has to follow the rule of law even when it's NOT in our best interests.
I find it troubling that so many people on this board are willing to condone torture, overlook the diminishing of constitutional rights, and deny anyone their Miranda Rights... It's a sign of fear and weakness, which is what the terrorist want.
Think of the way the rest of the world looks at us when we claim to be the great defender of democracy yet whenever it's convenient we suspend the rule of law. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
charged with crimes of terror.
How can you possibly justify that from a policy standpoint? We balance the harm to the individual (we don’t want the Panty Bomber to incriminate himself) vs the harm to society (we want to stop any other bombers coming our way) to determine where the policy scale tilts. And in terror crimes, it always balances to the right.
From a constitutional standpoint, we have no choice but to give Miranda if law enforcement is in charge. But, as I posted below, the solution is to give military the first right of non-torture interrogation while precluding the use of info gained from the interrogation at the suspect’s trial. Miranda applies only to the police. This way we at least have a chance get the info we need to prevent others from being harmed.
After the military interrogation, the suspect should be turned over to law enforcement who then will give him Miranda rights.
But the way we are doing it now -giving Miranda w/o interrogation - is just crazy.
...not so much to protect the rights of the accused, but to make sure that you have the right guy.
I wonder if you have ever been in combat. Have you ever commanded troops into battle. Have you ever been confronted by someone pointing a gun at you.
Trust me, there is no fucking doubt about who is trying to kill you on the battlefield. And there is no legal tenat anywhere in the world for giving the enemy US Constitutional Rights.
If I happened to be commanding a contingent of mixed troops, let's say US and Saudi troops, I can promise you that given the crap our government is pulling, my under the table orders to my troops is going to be to abide the standards of the Saudi's, take no prisoners and shoot to kill.
in real life.
But I agree as to Miranda rights. As to other constitutional rights such as habeas corpus, it gets more complex and if we are going to say the law of war governs, then we at least have to abide by the law of war.
Bush attempted to have it both ways by denying all constitutional rights to captured suspected terrorists but denying them Geneva Convention protections at well. Mr. Obama seems to be doing a little of both on an ad hoc basis.
Jessup authorized an attack on his own soldier, I wouldn't have done that... lol.. but if you're shooting at me or my troops...well let's just say I'd help you to have a very bad day.... I'm actually not in the military any longer... lol
Now as to the Convention, I guess you're referring to the alleged torture tactics. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that falls into a grey area because the Convention itself falls into a grey area given that the enemy is not a State or Government. Thus a strict reading of the Convention would say it does not have jurisdiction since the party in question is not a Government.
Like any good defense attorney (or for that matter prosecuting attorney) Bush has taken advantage of vagueness in the spirit of defending the safety of the US. Few could argue that his motives were in the best interest of the US which he was sworn to protect. I don't think Obama could reasonably make the same claim for his actions. But some would try.
The right answer here is for the parties to the Geneva Convention (and newcombers too) to reconvene and come to a new set of concepts that address a non Governmental enemy which knows no borders, demonstrates ruthlesness, and makes no distinction between soldiers and non-combatants.
My "hunch" is that given the nature of terrorism that is demonstrated by deed and not just words, the vast majority of countries would support the type of tactics employed by Bush.
But your point is exactly the one I made, except that I think we have to determine how to treat these guys under United States law in the first instance.
Certainly, the parties to the Geneva Conventions should do so as well. None of the treaties were drafted with international terrorism in mind and attempting to cram the treaty provisions onto this problem is about as unwieldy as applying Miranda.
of liberal thought. I just have to laugh when I see such textbook liberalism. You are to the left what Rush L. is to the right. You guys are both extreme.
BTW, if harm is done to anyone I love, I wouldn't care about law. You would feel the same way no matter how much you deny it. Human nature is much different than your liberal ideology.
I bet you're just so ecstatic that captured terrorists (foreigners) are given all the rights that Americans have. I really try to understand your side but I just can't. We'll agree to disagree and I'll just continue reading your porn blogs.
If someone hurt one of my loved ones and I had the ability, I'd track them down, torture or do whatever was necessary. That's human nature, and I'm no different that most people. However, that doesn't make it right, and I certainly don't want my government to act like a vigilante.
After WWII, the popular thing to do would have been to line all the Nazi heirarchy and creators of "the final solution" up against a wall and execute them; but instead, we held the Nuremburg Trials and showed the world that no matter how loathesome or inhuman these scum were that they were given their day in court. THAT is what the Rule of Law is all about.
As for being a classic example of "liberal thought", that's such a classic example of conservative blindness. It's funny, but conservatives love to talk about the founding fathers, but apparently don't pay too much attention to what they had to say. That "classic liberal thought" happens to be one of the basic tenets of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And no, I'm not ecstatic that captured terrorists are given "all the rights that American's have." I am glad, however, to see that the current administration takes the Rule of Law more seriously than the previous one did.
Laws, like anything written down, are subject to interpretation.
The actions you cite in your post you automatically assume to be correct, but over look things like Presidents (by law) being able to suspedn habeus corpus.
Have you ever heard the term "Looters will be shot on site?" This is a LEGAL PRACTICE!!
Legal scholars are debating the very things you cite. Whereas you say we are not following the law, I would disagee and say that in fact we are.
However, the law we are appying is the UCMJ, a set of laws good enough for our folks in the military. These are combatants, and do not even represent a foreign government and by defination are not POW's.
Bottom line, you may think folks are willing to throw the law aside, I would say you are foolishly mis-applying it.
My OP wasn't in response to the panty bomber; it was a general post concerning the willingness of many to ignore the proper laws of the land.
The president's right to suspend habeas corpus and the declaration of Marshall Law (which I assume you're referring to with Looters Will Be Shot On Sight) is fine as long as you don't shoot any looters BEFORE declaring Marshall Law or refuse the right of habeas corpus BEFORE the president suspends it, so you point doesn't really pertain to my post.
Someone (I forget who, sorry) once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The rule of law is important. It protects me, and keeps the police from entering my house without a warrant, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But modifying it to take in real danger is not wrong.
The Miranda rule was not enacted thinking of a handful of guys smashing planes into buildings and killing people by the thousands.
And THE WORST IS they are part of a huge organization that wants to do it again.
To treat that the way you treat a car thief is silly.
It never ceases to amaze me your willingness to throw our constitutional rights out the window by applying (the VERY blind-sighted) benchmark "as long as it doesn't affect me or my friends"
Your short-sightedness is staggering...
well put but a hard sell with this group. i'm not sure about the being ashamed part, people will say and do all kinds of things when frightened and confused, and we collectively seem to be both these days.