Well let's see. If you become classified as an "Enemy Combatant" then you will have half of your bill of rights revoked. I've lost those liberties, as we all have. The government is free to call any one of us an enemy combatant and we automagically lose. And again, how do we KNOW that any terrorists are incarcerated? The government says that they are, so it must be true? Those who aren't granted bail are still allowed a fair trial, and they know why they are being held.
Why would they bother to detain somebody if they didn't have substancial concern that they were terrorists? We are prosecuting a "war" on terrorism. How can we find time to harass innocent citizens?
AMEN!!!!! I was about to post about this as well, but I deleted it, thinking no one else would agree. Many of the Pro-Ashcroft camp members assume that those in the Anti-Ashcroft camp are following some sort of "liberal agenda" or something. Against the Patriot act, but pro gun control. In some ways, I would agree that this can become somewhat inconsistent. But to automatically assert that someone would be pro-gun control and anti-Ashcroft is a misrepresentation, and flatly untrue. Like Ottomaton, I am against signifcant restriction of liberty in BOTH of these cases.
I like that word "automagically." You should copyright it! Until I am classified as such, I have lost no Rights. I'm not exactly sitting around waiting for that to happen. I follow your theory... just not to your conclusion. I have more faith in our elected officials than that. I bet these "enemy combatants" know exactly why they are being held. How do we know that anyone is guilty when they are arrested in a criminal case? It is a degree of difference but their freedom is stripped even before they are convicted. Weird, huh? Not really. It's the seamy side of the system. So is this enemy combatant stuff.
So we just assume that those who the government has detained are actually terrorists? The government must have the evidence . . . good enough for me? Hardly! This is the kind of law that can be used in so many different abusive ways it should be universally decried.
So... you don't see any difference between us and them? How 'bout WWII? If the Nazi's had won, would that have made no difference in the world. When the Japanese and Germans were torturing and killing American POWs we should have done the same thing right back to their POWs. We didn't, because we were better than them. I hope you can at least grasp why I consider this to be important. Great! We all know that people who are sworn to protect us never do anything wrong, like Nixon and the Watergate, Regan and arms for hostages, Clinton and the BJ, Trafficant and his kickbacks, Packwood and his women, etc. History indicates that the people sworn to protect us, don't always keep their promise. The reason that we have our checks and balances is so that the failings of individuals will be defended against, because they are ineviatable. These new rules do just that, however. They eliminate the checks and balances. People are assumed to be criminals, or terrorists, or whatever, just because the justice dept. decrees it. There is no judicial review. There is no check or balance. It may be more efficent, and it might be more effective, but it circumvents every freedom afforded to American citizens, on the basis of one groups assessment. If they make a mistake, there is no way to correct them.
But at least under the proper rule of law, people are allowed fair trials with lawyers and evidence from both sides. Certainly it becomes more difficult when one is accused to be proven innocent, but it can and does happen quite a bit. It's that very concept that is so fundamental to our justice system. By removing that, we are essentially elminating any chance of being innocent. If one can not know what he is accused of, have any legal recourse or any legal representation, how can he have much chance of being proven innocent, regardless of what evidence he may have in his favor? The prosecutor certainly won't present that evidence, and there is no real defense to present it so we get the guilty verdict "automagically" handed to the accused. And saying that "they know why they're there" is nothing more than what you've asserted to this point -- generalizations and assumptions. I imagine that there are some who are being held who are guilty. But that doesn't mean that everyone is, and we should forego their liberties. Even if they are ALL guilty, they still have liberties that MUST be upheld as citizens of the United States. <i>edit</i>: Ottomaton has hit it directly on the head again! Our officials cannot necessarily be trusted to always do the right thing. And the evidence supporting this concept could fill libraries.
Please don't resort to that statement, giddyup. I'm sure that the loyalists used it to argue against that revolution in the 1700's.
I'm glad that not everyone has that attitude, or else positive change would never occur. Want women to be able to vote? Move away somewhere else. I'd rather work for the future this country than just callously leave and watch freedoms, liberties and the constitution be dismantled from afar.
It's bad to root for the good guys? While you dismantle the country in your mind, I'll be busy working and raising a family. I am part of what makes America great. I hope you are too. You can live this melodrama in your mind if you like. If you really think you can draw analogies between women's rights and murdering terrorists... go right ahead!
It's actually happened before that the govt. went after people who committed no crime. The whole communist hearings under McCarthy was a symbol of this. In WWII, you would have thought the govt was too busy fighting a world war which was certainly a larger task than this war, but they still had time to lock up Japanese-Americans in internment camps. It actually takes less effort to lock up these 'enemies' because they don't actually have to prove a case against them, or deal those pesky defense lawyers, and all those things that take time.
Whoa whoa whoa!!! Bad to root for the good guys? HARDLY!!! But I think it's bad for the good guys to use shady and unconstitutional tactics to "win". If we are the good guys, why can't we abide by our own rules? My analogy had nothing to do with comparing the two issues of women's sufferage and the Patriot act. It has to do with your assertion that if one does not like his rule of law, he should just leave. If we were to follow that mindset, no positive change would ever occur because those who disagreed with the laws would just move and nothing would ever be done about them. Women's sufferage is just a good example of this. Women weren't afforded the right to vote by moving, but by arguing against the system. It's a mindset of fight rather than flight. I am trying to change things by arguing against the system as well. I may never make a change, but I am going to do what I can to effect positive, rather than up and leaving because there are laws I don't agree with. Again, all you have been able to do is come up with generalized assertions. Assumptions that those who are being held are terrorists. And if we have SO MUCH evidence against them, why would we be so scared of trying them in real court, rather than this secret crap where not even the accused is allowed to know his crime.
Remember that the next time to rail against Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle...etc, etc, etc. They're all just "good guys," right? I didn't see you packing up and moving to Europe when Clinton was in office. Abortion is still legal in the US...why not move to Ireland where it isn't? "Move if you don't like it" is the weakest argument in the long history of weak arguments. You can do better than that.
<b>Vengeance</b>: I never said that anyone <b>should</b> just leave. That changes the meaning <b>entirely</b> of what I said. Please don't do that. I pointed out tongue-in-cheek that if you thought things to be so "dangerous" here in America you could <b>consider</b> leaving. My assumptions about those detainees being held is <b>in accord</b> with those who are in charge and responsible for detaining them. Meanwhile you assume them innocent with no further information available. I'll go with the guys in charge and responsible for the nation's security. I think they know more than you and it seems pretty clear why they must handle the situation this way. This <b>is</b> part of our legal system. If you don't like it, fine. Do things to change it, however I don't see how calling the man in charge a fascist and a destroyer of the Constitution is at all helpful. I find it to be hysterical. <b>Jeff</b>: I never called Clinton a fascist. I never hinted that Clinton was fundamentally changing America. Yet those are the charges being leveled here. Had America been under attack like we are now under President Bush, Clinton would have gotten more support and less friction from little ole me. Yes Bill and Tom are good guys compared to Ossama and his crew. I don't hate Bill or Tom; I just don't agree with their politics and I don't particularly respect Bill. I don't think Hillary is a "guy" though! I never said "America: Love it or leave it" to Vengeance or Ottomation. I said "you can consider moving if you think it's that bad." It was just a deadpan comment to contrast with the seriousness of their complaint about America unraveling at the seams thanks to John Ashcroft. <b>FB</b>: Locking up Japanese-American's was considered part of fighting the war-- just as rounding up these internal enemies is. Lots of ugly things happen in wartime. Some of it can't be prevented. About all we can do sometimes is apologize in retrospect-- "retro" being the key here. When you figure out how to make it neat and pretty let us know. For God's sake in the Revolutionary War, we hid behind trees and in a very ungentlemanly manner fired at Redcoats standing firmly in the sunlight. Shall we give the country back?
Alright, I suppose I misunderstood your "leave" comment. Sorry. But, tell me one instance in which I have assumed that these people are innocent. Heck, I'm going to concur with you and say that I bet some, perhaps even MANY are actually guilty of terrorism. But I don't care -- right now they are innocent UNTIL they are proven guilty in court. Not "proven guilty" by accusation. If the government has the evidence, why is it so horrible to actually have real trials, rather than this secret military crap? What if some of these people REALLY ARE innocent? They surely have no chance of proving this without proper legal counsel and representation. They can't fight against charges they are unaware of. And if you think the government only catches criminals and those in the "wrong", think again. In this case, perhaps every single person being detained is guilty. That doesn't mean they don't deserve a trial. I also challenge you point out where I have called Bush or any other leader a "fascist". In fact (this may strike you as hard to believe, but it's true), I VOTED FOR BUSH!!! I do intend to call a spade a spade though, and this IS a gross encroachment on our constituional rights via the Bill of Rights. To see it, just look at how the Patriot Act denies many of our due process rights, and other liberties. And I don't still don't see how we are so secure with these gestappo tactics in place. Reminds me of McCarthyism to an extent. And just because I haven't personally been affected doesn't mean that I will just turn a blind eye to the grievances of governmental power suck. And I know it IS part of our legal system. It is only recently a part of our legal system though, and I HAVE been doing things to try to change it. I have written many letters to officials and have spoken out against these measures on countless occasions.
<b>Vengeance</b>: I apologize if I lumped you in with others who deride "Fashcroft." While you have not called him a fascist, you do seem to almost equate him with that kind of ruthlessness with regards to civil rights. You want them treated just like, what, shoplifters? These are enemy combatants. It's way different, no? Someone has more facts than you and they have acted in the national interest. You mostly seem to want to see the tragedy for those who are innocent. What about the triumph of the detention of those who are guilty. As I've said, war is ugly. If this "enemy combatant" stuff is as ugly as it gets in and for America since 9/11 we are going to be pretty damn lucky.
