Homeland Security: part Deux

#1 Interesting... Here's a few thoughts:

This has all been done before during WW2. Eight germans who were American citizens were found guilty of sabotage(or terrorism, which was a phrase not really invented then) and hung/shot after secret military tribunals. There is precedent for this type of track then, and honestly, I'd like to see Padilla and Walker hang slow for their traitorous acts(why the govt accepted a plea bargan when they picked up that piece of crap from the front lines is beyond me, under the laws of war he was eligible for a battlefield courts-martial and execution).

As for the legal debate, that's good. It will have to go through the courts, and I think they'll reign in some of the not-so-kosher stuff in the bill that would be very hard to prove under constitutional laws and precedent. And after that, it'll hit the Congress, where the Democrats will most likely tear it up, if for no other reason than vengeance for the last election(yes, even if it was a good bill, the two parties tend to do that to each other).

So my opinion is that this is a non-issue until the plan is actually hammered out and ready to come to a vote. And when that happens, you'll see a lot less threatening wording in the document. Reason being: In all things that you must go to others and ask for something, you will usually get less than what you asked for, so in order to get what you want you must ask for more than what you need. And when they give you less, then what you actually get is what you want. I would not be surprised if that is the tactic being used here, as has been used for other bills in order to get them through. Then again, maybe they do expect to pass all of it. But still, the application is explicit in saying that it is for terrorism suspects, which are enemy combatants and have always been subject to this track.

Just my 2 cents...

#2

Quote:under the laws of war he was eligible for a battlefield courts-martial and execution

How can you court martial someone who isn't in your military?

He is a US citizen and he gets the same rights you and I do.... even if he is a jackass.

(I'm assuming your an american :) )

#3 Just off the bat (this is not addressed at you Ted), don't turn this into a flame war/insult war, or anything else childish. If you have something to add to the discussion, do so, and back it up with facts. If you've got nothing worthwhile to say...please leave.

Ted,
For Walker, as far as I'm concerned, he renounced any ties to the US when enrolled in the Taliban army. He should be treated as such. I don't see how he could be a traitor simply because he was born in the US. He made a choice, and he should be treated as a POW. His US citizenship should be officially removed. Now, if he had been in the US army, and was shooting his own comrades, that would be different.
Padilla's case is even weirder. There's no info on what he's being charged with or the proof behind it. I'm willing to give the gov the benefit of the doubt that they have serious reason to believe that he may have discussed with others plans to plan a dirty bomb, but I don't understand why he can't be tried in the normal court system. They already have safeguards to make sure sensitive information stays sealed. At least Padilla would have the right to counsel, and the right to defend himself. If the gov has the required proof, then they should have no problems convicting him.

Also, I think you fallen under the assumption that a bill needs to be passed in order for the executive to do this. I'm pretty sure you're mistaken (by this I mean I don't think there's any plan for any bills). The executive is already doing this. Now they're just putting down on paper the guidelines to follow.

I think the biggest misconception is that the government is somehow warranted in doing this because we're at war. The thing is, we're not a war. We haven't been at war for a long time. In fact, the last time we declared war (a constitutional prerequisite to physically attacking someone) was in 1942.

How can we have a war on terrorism? I know that they're just using the same definitions as the war on drugs or the war on poverty. The difference with this war is that we've actually attacked a country, and that we are continually engaging in battles with various groups throughout the world, with actually being at war.

They say these things will end when the war on terrorism ends. *sigh*. Do you honestly believe that the war on terrorism will ever end? We may one day be able to contain it to a degree, but it will never end. Just like drugs or poverty.

Anyways, I digress from the main point of this article. In my opinion, this is just another power grab by the executive. Once more the so called checks and balances are being removed. In this system, very little proof has to be offered, because very few people are privy to this proof. In this system, you lose the right to defend yourself, the right to due process, the right to face your accuser. In some cases, these people will just be held indefinitly (or until the war on terrorism is over, hah!). So basically, they will be convicted upon arrest.

This sets up the scary groundwork for very possible future abuse. Notice the courts (well some courts) have tried repeatedly to stop the government or obtain explanations, and have been either countered with this ultra-secret 3-judge court (which by the way hasn't been convened for around 30 years), or they outright ignore orders from court rulings (I don't have the links on hand, I'll go see if I can find them...this is quite recent though).

The thing is, we have to be concerned, and vigilant. I'm not saying everything is going to go to hell overnight, but it's slowly happening. One last thing, we also need to be careful when relying on precedents. Just because it was done before doesn't make it right. We should not condemn future generations to the mistakes made in the past. If this goes through now, it might be used as precedent for worse things in the future.

#4 The laws of war are an international convention. The famous photo of a "civilian" being executed in vietnam was the case of a person being found on the battlefield not in uniform and in the act of fighting, which is the case under which these field courts-martials are performed(the photo did not accurately explain this and was subsequently used as an example of a war crime, which it actually wasn't, but looked like it without background information). This is why on the back of a military ID card is the Geneva Convention category that a military person falls under. What all of those categories actually mean I don't know, except having been informed of what my rights were if caught and what I was and was not required to tell my captors for my own category.

To the best of my knowledge, those who fall under Padilla and Walker's category do not fall under these protections, though the legal debates were mainly about what constituted the battlefield(ie, is the US a battlefield? If so, then it all applies to Padilla, and it certainly applied to Walker who was caught in Afghanistan, though someone made the choice to prosecute him in civilian courts for some reason, maybe because this is an undeclared war? Now *that* could be the single technicality causing much of this debate, because WW2 was a declared war).

#5

Quote:Also, I think you fallen under the assumption that a bill needs to be passed in order for the executive to do this. I'm pretty sure you're mistaken (by this I mean I don't think there's any plan for any bills). The executive is already doing this. Now they're just putting down on paper the guidelines to follow.

Okay, you got me there. That is interesting indeed...

Quote:I think the biggest misconception is that the government is somehow warranted in doing this because we're at war. The thing is, we're not a war. We haven't been at war for a long time. In fact, the last time we declared war (a constitutional prerequisite to physically attacking someone) was in 1942.

Hmmm, well this is different. You see, in the Constitution, the President has the power to make war, and the Congress has the power to "declare" war. The two are different powers, but your argument is probably at the root of the argument against this legal track. Beyond this, I'd need to be a lawyer specializing in this stuff to have a much better understanding =)

Though the powers of the President do include that of making war, even if it is undeclared. I believe the main reason why this is an undeclared war is because there is no clear country(ies) to declare war against. IMHO, we should have declared it to give it more weight in the eyes of the world(you're right, it is being treated somewhat like the war on drugs, which is a mistake), and that may be a mistake that will come back to haunt us later.

#6 Well.. president can authorize military action.

But he can't really wage war, unless he can finish it in a 6 month period. Beyond that, congress can pull the troops back.

Really, I think we have all made a huge mistake giving good ole boy Dubya the red button.

#7 Yacine, I understand your concerns and though I personally would rather not come here and see more threads like this, I also say if you feel the need to fight the good fight, then more power to you.

The bottom line is that we can't have our cake and eat it too. In other words, we can't have a higher level of security without our own rights being invaded (I might argue that if someoene is determined to do a terrorist act that they will find a way, but that's another thread).

In the recent elections, Bush, the Republican Party, and the world were shown just how the American People felt: We overwhelmingly elected the Republican Party in a year that Democrats should have easily walked away with it. Strong, strong show of our own support in our govt.

This could be from the "sheep" theory I saw in another similar thread. That we are all idiots and the herd mentality rules (Such a sweeping statement is a sign of not being well informed in itself. Again--for another thread).

Or, perhaps we've drawn our line in the sand and braced ourselves to do what it takes in this war.

I don't want to see Miranda given up. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is more than just a neat saying. Thankfully, we don't live in country where even having this discussion would be grounds for treason.

Yacine, if you are truly bothered by all this why don't you take further steps beyond the realm of GG? The ACLU fight such things (sic.)? I strongly encourage you and others to do so. Less words, more actions.;)

--Eric

#8 Yay police state here we come. Thanks for posting this.

#9 Well eric, a wise man knows that he may not be right, and that goes for people on both sides of that sheep theory. Its best to silently observe and make inferences with the assumption that you may not be completely correct, and with the willingness to make changes if in that case it is so.

Maybe it is time for people to start to remember what george washington's farewell address stated, and for the people who are ignorant of that, they should perhaps read it. It may not be directly related to this subject but its a good general piece of advice.

#10 Alex, the reader infers; the writer implies.

I've lived too many years on the politically correct fence, so I know a little about the "we all can be right" mentality. Guess what: We can't all be right. Choose a side, or a side will be chosen for you. A Catholic cannot say, "Well, Catholicism is right for me, but Satanism is right for them." They simply cannot co-exist and still ring true. Either the person believes in one God, and only one, or he is not truly Catholic.

Somebody stating that America is the land of the sheep is effectively excluding himself from that group merely by mentioning it (implying that he's reached a higher awareness than most). Or, look at it a different way. America is the land of the sheep, and the rest of the world is filled with sheperds? They aren't human?

For the record: I want to be a sheep. That excludes me from making decisions beyond what grass to munch. No more discussions like this, since I wouldn't care. No more being concerned with losing rights, becase I just wouldn't care. Yeah, I think a sheep would be nice and comfortable. Well, until someone wanted mutton, anyway.

--Eric

#11 I like your pro-ignorant way of thinking Eric, unfortunately the rules of the sheep imply that you musn't get too smart (it might not be a word, but if so i am officially declaring it one). Well eric, you can't just go along and declare yourself the creator of the universe, can you? You can't also just go ahead and declare that everyone needs to take a side, why? Because I said so, I can't find any better reasons at the moment. We might not all be right, sure, i can accept that. But that doesn't mean that anyone is. Also you have to wonder what "right" really is. When the universe was created there was not a huge stone tablet placed with a list of everything that was right, and on another side of a line, everything that was wrong.

I guess if you want to be a sheep eric...well, i feel sorry for you then, its nice to think that there are intelligent people capable of making their own decisions in life. If everyone if as intelligent and as independant as i was, or perhaps some people i know are, perhaps there wouldn't be as many problems. But hey, i don't want to cause any sort of offense here, but if you want to mindlessly follow a government, no matter what happens, well, there's nothing to stop you, thats fine, go ahead. As you say "the reader infers", and the reader would perhaps infer from reading what you have to write, that you are one who is easily swayed, and is easily decieved or misguided.
Naturally anything or everything that i have said could be false, but nothing's going to stop me from saying it.

#12 Since we are fielding opinions, and before this thread degenerates too far...

I see this whole issue this way: We must, as a country, decide what rights we are willing to give up for the sake of safety. The problem is that Bush is making that descision for us.

Myself, I feel that we are giving up far too much for far too little. Granted, I live in an area where terrorism is unlikely to significantly impact me. That being the case, I am unhappy about giving up ANY rights in exchange for protection that will be unlikely to benefit me directly.

Selfish? Probably. Do I want to see others suffer? Of course not.

I am not going to be knowingly involved in any acts of terrorism. But what about the case where I am doing nothing wrong (afaik) but end up accused of terrorist acts? Then I am screwed. There is too much wiggle room in the definition of terrorist act (or whatever terms they are using) for my taste.

I do not trust politicians to do the right thing. It is just that simple.

#13 Wow, Alex, I never said or did most of what you assumed. Apparently, the touch of irony at the end wasn't obvious enough (mutton). Just because I want peace of mind doesn't automatically allow me that luxury. I don't want to pay bills, lead a reasonably clean life, and alot of responsibilties in general, and yet I still do. I'm human, and thus am admitting that I am only human. Part of me would love to take a car payment or two and go to the Bahamas, drink, party, and have unprotected sex with mucho women... but the other part knows the repercussions of doing that (lose car/credit, kill liver, father 'unplanned' kids and/or come back with an STD). So Alex, don't preach to me about how I feel.

Yacine,just to clarify: I really do understand where you are coming from. Since we are oft now unnendated with post 9/11 news like this, I would like a little haven from it--so naturally, I don't see an actual link to videogames (barring games based on terrorism or political ones, etc). I don't know who first said it, but I consider this a real truism: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Of course, I understand I can exercise my right to ignore the threads--but obviously I too oft get drawn up to it (and thus sometimes get quite emotional about it). During WWII we put innocent Germans and Japanese into our own prison camps, and I'm sure Americans thought we would never again be faced with that possibility.

I still would like to see more action and fewer words. ;-) Not meant to be a personal slam or anything--just trying to nudge you in a direction toward taking action. :-)

For the moment I keep abreast of it, and hope my trust isn't unfounded. That is what it is, after-all: trust. Sure, it bothers the hell out of me that we might throw out our Bill of Rights. I happen to know one man just a few years older than I (I'm 34)who would forgo everyone's rights if it ensured him that he and his family would be better protected. He and I have had long discussions about the evils of his belief. ;) (Before anyone else takes that literally, it really isn't: More like another jab of 'irony' and sarcasm)

Baaaa

--Eric
edit: error patrol

#14 what's odd is that the story I'm using for my game was in my head since high school, but fits very nicely with "history" that is in the works as we speak. I'm using some of your guys's paranoia as things that the government is doing as a result of the Homeland Security Act being passed (governmentally developed and monitored video games, citizen secrecy under scrutiny). Thanks for the ideas. (C: I didn't even read this thread. Don't wanna get worked up again.

Jeremy

#15 OMFG Jeremy, do you ever stop?!?

Jeremy have you read the govt documentation outlining the Homeland Security Act? And you call us paranoid? There is no paranoia about it my friend. Paranoia is irrational, and to be alarmed by these documents is HARDLY irrational.

*sings*
This is the thread that never ennnnnnds....

Alex: I agree with you about sheep mentality, but what is even more dangerous is the "it could never happen to me" mentality. It's this kind of thinking that is going to ruin our society. People are so burned out and fantasized that they don't think anything like the third riech could ever happen in this country. Well the Germans never thought it could happen in their country either until it did. So homeland security seems benign now, wait until its expanded and abused. They will *never* remove it even if the threat of terrorism is eliminated. It will be here to stay forever.

The next time some of you get a speeding ticket, maybe you should think about what would happen if/when speeding is considered a "terrorist act". Spitting on the sidewalk and oral sex are illegal in some states, what would their "terrorist" counterpart be? Yay even more obscure laws that we as citizens cannot even hope to be completely familiar with.

Let the witchhunt begin.

#16 As the original perpetraitor of the "land of the sheep" comment...May I point out that both threads now were started by people who "became informed" either through a Talk Radio program or a newspaper editorial...the reason I say "sheep" is because both sources of "information" are nothing more then reflections of personnel opinions (of the radio callers/host...and of the editorial writer)...now, what exactly is wrong with this?

Maybe we ALREADY live in this "1984-ish" society...I meen if it only takes a radio show and editorial to "convince" the unaware that something is evil...well, what can I say besides "BBAAAAHHH!" :P


The "war on terrorisam" is a joke indeed...where would it stop?...Once our current targets are dead...is the IRA next? What about abortion clinic bombers? Arn't those terrorist too?

Blah! :P ...the government does most things half-azzed anyway

#17 LOL, settle down entropy. I decided not to argue with ignorant people anymore. I was just stating that this stuff fits well with my story, and it is ironic that this story was in my head for over 5 years.

#18 I forgot what it is called. But it is a phenomenon in arguments or discusssions. Forgive me if I screw up the definition, but it is something like this:

As the length of ANY argument grows, the odds of someone mentioning nazis grows exponentially. That person should therefore by default lose the argument.

Anyone know what rule is called? Debators use it to keep their arguments to the point, and not go for the all too easy "compare it to the nazis..the biggest and most commonly known evil of all time to prove my point" mentality. Heh...nazis...

#19 Godwin's law

#20 That's it! Heh, Yacine...very popular threads man! Nice place for good debate...