From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 16:31:18 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 15, 2002, at 07:03 pm, Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> > My view: the FBI deserved much worse treatment here AND this should be a
> > warning about giving it even more power. If a so called defanged
> > intelligence agency can do this sort of thing -- not even to add in
> > Waco, the Randy Weaver thingy, and all the stuff throughouts its long
> > and sordid history -- then what would be expected of one with sharp,
> > bloody ones? For it to play patty cake while standing up for individual
> > liberties?
>
> I echo this warning! The government is denying basic constitutional
> rights to Americans who are accused of terrorism. It now appears that
> mere accusation by the government is enough to remove one's
> constitutional rights. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty,
> these suspects are stripped of their citizenship rights first and they
> have to prove themselves innocent to get their rights to a trial and
> lawyer back.
I think though that everyone is assuming that Padilla just was dragged
off to military prison when he was arrested. This is not the case. He
went before a civilian court, with his attorney, where the state
presented the case that the proper venue for the case was a military
tribunal, based on the evidence available, the amount of classified
evidence involved, and the prior SCOTUS precedent. They judge agreed and
the venue was changed.
> I have similar concerns about the prisoners being held in Cuba. When it
> is convenient, the administration claims we are at war with terrorists.
> However, when inconveniences of war rear their ugly head, such as the
> Geneva Convention, the administration claims that we are not at war and
> that wartime rules don't apply.
No, that is not what the administration is claiming. The administration
is claiming that the prisoners held at Gitmo are illegal combatants
because they *violated* the Geneva Conventions by: a) fighting with no
uniform, b) attacking, supporting attacks, or planning/ordering attacks
on non-combatant targets, or c) hiding themselves or equipment within,
behind, or as non-combatants. Under this situation, they have no right
of protection by the Constitution whatsoever, nor of protection under
the Geneva Conventions.
We are actually treating these prisoners far better than they deserve as
the Conventions describe, and the only reason they are being held is for
intelligence value. The Geneva Conventions prescribe summary trial by
military officers for illegal combatants, with punishment up to and
including execution without appeal.
It seems that you and others here still have failed to read the
Conventions as I've previously recommended several times.
>
> The government seems to be working under emergency measures by
> suspending constitutional rights, without going through proper
> procedures. What's more, unlike a traditional war that could be
> declared ended, I see no end-game scenario for this war. These new
> government powers to violate citizens' constitutional rights could
> endure indefinitely.
Yes, that is a problem. This is the nature of a insurgency using low
intensity conflict. Its entire purpose (i.e. the intent of the
terrorists) is to erode civil liberties to the point where the civilian
population is pushed to the point of choosing either a police state or
revolution. Either alternative serves their purposes, and it is for this
reason that I really don't care much for treating the bad guys with kid
gloves. The only successful strategy shown by history to beat such
insurgencies is through rather severe measures. Even when it does work,
the population is usually conned by sympathizers and fellow travellers
afterward that the cost wasn't worth the victory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST