Wither Due Process
I find it irritating that folks like President Obama feel like the power to indefinitely detain people, without due process, is Constitutionally OK as long as the President does not abuse the power. Sorry, but the very existance of this power is a violation of the Constitution. The whole point of that great document was to always assume that state powers would be abused, and I think history has taught that this is a fair assumption
"So basically, the point of military tribunals is to get the verdict desired by the administration"
That is the only "point" you can see in a military tribunal? Seriously? I guess if my viewpoint was as limited as yours I might think the same way as you do. However, unlike you, I also understand reality.
WHy is "evidence" withheld from the defendant in such a court? Is it some nefarious plot to railroad someone with terrorist charges? In your world, in such a case, you would simply hand over everything to the "defense", regardless of the security implications? Seriously? This is your position? I have never heard anything so silly in my life.
Mark, we are not at war. Your argument is invalid.
"Mark, we are not at war. Your argument is invalid."
LOL, ok. Sorry, but you are wrong. The Civil War was also "not a war", but it was. Terrorism is an act of war. Actions against terrorism are acts of war.
I find Goober's point compelling. If there is a crime, prosecute it. The only possible reasons for such indefinite detention is when you want to hold somebody you can't, or won't, prove is guilty. Perhaps we need to make allowances in the process for the exigencies of a particular situation. Maybe an open public indictment would reveal sensitive national security information. Fine, adjust the process to keep the information secret - but make sure that there is a process and that it's subject to at least some level of independent judicial review. If you can't do that, let the guy go.
Mark, only congress can declare war, and it has not. We are not a war. Be as smug as you want, but you are a fool.
Mark, you keep bringing up the Civil War as being somehow relevant here. It isn't.
I think the language of the 5th Amendment is pretty clear:
"No person shall...."
I think the whole debate in this thread is missing that point; they specifically said "person", not "citizen". It is my understanding that this was intentional because they meant all people born everywhere have certain rights, regardless of citizenship.
The fact that you all argue that certain people lose their rights in certain situations because of provenance of their birth merely underscores the issue - that there are people in power making arbitrary decisions that some people are treated less than people when it is convenient to those in charge.
"It’s legal if you shoot enough of them :-D"
Absolutely classic - best of thread!
It's been downhill ever since dueling was outlawed.
"WHy is “evidence” withheld from the defendant in such a court? Is it some nefarious plot to railroad someone with terrorist charges? In your world, in such a case, you would simply hand over everything to the “defense”, regardless of the security implications?"
"neferious plot to railroad someone". Well yes. That is exactly what I think it will turn into. Sooner or later, someone in the government whether at the very top or the bottom or somewhere in the middle, will take it upon themselves to try someone using these laws who is best described as a political opponent of that particular government employee.
It has already happened with every existing expansion of power. Only recently we argued about the case of police officers charging cartoonists ridiculing them on the internet with stalking charges. This will be no different, only potentially worse. With the ability to close trials and hence prevent public knowledge or outrage. It could become widespread before it was even publicly recognized. By the time people like you recognize that "yes" this is exactly the sort of thing a police state does. It will be too late.
Tell me Mark. How is it that you can understand the unintended consequences of economic laws. But, somehow when it comes to law and order you can only see the intended first order effects of laws as if they were implemented and enforced by saints. I know you don't trust the Democrats. You have called them criminals on this site. Yet you trust them with laws like this. Unbelievably nieve!
Do tell, steve, would you have acted illegally with regards to alcohol prohibtion before the 22nd Amendment? In other words, you seem to be arguing from "Natural Law" than what is law in the U.S.
@Gil probably. And, prohibition was actually constitutional. Notice, we don't bother making constitutional ammendments anymore. No longer necessary.
"Notice, we don’t bother making constitutional ammendments anymore. No longer necessary."
Amendments? Too much trouble. Much easier to just say "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" and just make up whatever shit you want to force people to do.
Hmm, the government already arrests the wrong person and suffers no consequences and this is when you actually get a day in court. Black bagging someone doesn't even waste time with pesky judicial review.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wrong-id-20111225,0,7157038.story?page=2&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20MostEmailed%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Most%20E-mailed%20Stories%29&utm_source=feedburner
Apparently some people believe "roll over and take it" is not the best policy to confront treason...
Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial].
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate