Sooner rather than later...
 

So because Abdullah al-Mujahir was in a region of the world where there are terrorists he can be arrested? Not to sound like the bleeding heart I might be but I thought US citizens were protected by the US Constitution. By defining him as an enemy combatant he may now be tried under a system that admittedly offers MANY fewer protections to the accused than he is garanteed under said Constitution. So does that mean that anybody traveling in Montana may be defined as an enemy combatant? Or just anybody, cause hey you never know who that screen name belongs to. Shit, I might be conversing with terrorists right now. Oh SHIT! I heard sirens... [Door left swinging in the wind as I run for the woods...]

Now now we haven't had constitutional government for some time. Why worry now? ... think I'll rent Brazil again.

Oh yah, Padilla is a dirty bomb expert because he researched them on the net, draw your own conclusions.

I guess it really all depends on what you're willing to accept as evidence. Padilla is linked with al Qaeda because he... researched it on the net? No... I do that too, and I haven't been carted off yet. He's considered as having ties to al Qaeda because he... is a "follower" of Islam? No... there are millions of other Americans that haven't been carted off yet. Hmmmm. Maybe it's because he met with Zubaydah a while ago. And maybe they have other evidence as well. And maybe we should just sit back and see how it unravels. John Walker is going to get acquitted (or get a nonsense sentence), and that's probably correct. As more details about this case emerge, we'll be able to make more informed decisions. In the mean time, how about we stop jumping the gun and making arguments based solely around emotion. Hmmm?

On his guilt, I'm willing to withhold judgement but on the manner of finding his guilt, we need to have a discussion.

Such a discussion is pointless. Neither side is armed with the facts. Both you and I would be arguing out of relative ignorance.

I'm with dham on this one. Never thought i'd say that.

(delete)
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
(delete)

We managed civilian jury trials through the Cold War, now its too dangerous.

You can stop after "In all criminal prosecutions", because this ain't one.

Thats a good point, too bad we're not at war.

What I find most disturbing is that, as far as I know, he hasn't even been charged with anything yet.

Of course, I've been kinda distracted lately. Did they suspend habeas corpus while I wasn't watching?

Is it time to dig up my cache of firearms and krugerrands and flee to the countryside? (Hey, Griff... what are real estate prices like up there? ;) )

I'm not saying that Padilla is a Boy Scout. If there is anything to these charges he should never breath free air again. I'm just concerned that we are as the WSW put it, ironically IMHO, Building the Scaffolding of the Police State.

I think we can work out a gold discount.

Wow. That is definitely an interesting opinion. I would disagree with you; I think the war started last September.

The definition of a war may be changing, but we are definitely at war. There are lots of people out there who would gladly kill every man, woman, and child in the U.S. if they could.

Just because the Taliban is out of power doesn't mean the war has ended; it's actually just begun.

If any other country in the world declared an American citizen to be a "bad guy" and locked him up, would his State Department be doing everything in its power to ensure that he had a right to counsel, was not being held without charges, not being held indefinitely, and not being administered cruel and unusual punishment?

Some Americans are at greater risk from their own government because they don't have any foreign government to fight for their rights as citizens of another nation. As Americans they only have the rights the administration is prepared to extend to them in the circumstances. They may or may not have constitutional rights, it depends on the government.

If Padilla's a "prisoner of war" is he being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Is he being tortured? Why not? Who decides which of his constitutional rights he's not entitled to because of what the government believes he has thought or what he has said. It seems obvious that there is no evidence that he has yet done anything illegal, or he'd still be detained in the justice system, as is Massoui and Reid.

I believe Padilla's a potentially dangerous person. Surely, there are many potentially dangerous Americans. Within the scope of the constitution, everything possible should be done to thwart any criminal intentions they might have.

Mobsters are bad guys and dangerous people. Hopefully, they too are under surveillance and will be brought to justice whenever they commit a crime, or prevented from committing crimes should they attempt a criminal act.

Surely, a lot of crime could be prevented if the FBI rounded up all the "known" mobsters and held them indefinitely. Bobby Kennedy probably would have liked to have ahd that power to break the mob, but not at the expense of abrogating the constitutional rights of American citizens. Even the bad guys. Even guys like Gotti have constitutional rights.

Maybe the government should use the miliary system to fight the War On Drugs. Noriega was picked up by the military and brought back to face American justice in Florida. Now, there's a "bad guy" for sure. He is not an American but he received American justice.

Soon, if not already, American Muslims will not be free to speak out against their government without risk of being added to a list of unpatriotic dissidents that represent a "threat" to America, or "picked up and detained indefitinely" so long as the war on terror continues.

Those of us who feel free to express any contrary views on the Internet do so with the comfort of knowing that if we are investigated by the FBI, they'll find that we're not even Muslims and therefore, presumed innocent white christians and jews who are protected by constitutional rights.

Obviously, there are many Americans who are so afraid in this war on terror that they are prepared to say that for the duration, the constitutional rights of the few can and should be abrogated for the greater security of the many. So, now we understand how it made sense at the time to "detain" innocent Japanese Americans during WWII.

There ought to be some things we aren't prepared to do to fight the war against terrorists. Because it would fundamentally change who we are as a free nation.

I don't wish to be the nutty civil libertarian here, but since I've stumbled into the role.... Definitions mean a great deal. Congress has abrogated its responsibility by not declaring war on a specific group or country. Whether this is force of habit or so insurance companies can't hide behind war clauses, I don't know. What it does is leave us in a position where the President can choose our enemies without consulting Congress. So when we invade Iraq there will have been no real debate in the context of approving or rejecting the expansion of the conflict. (Griff vowing sunshine and lollipops for a while)

Reasons to be more mistrusting of anything from the Geroge Jr administration. Everytime another disclosure about bad government management comes up, then we have another 'rumored' al Qaeda attacker uncovered.

Where is this radioactive material he was going to explode? The guy looks very much like a dupe - a courier stuffed with mythical ideas so that, if caught, he would only be a distraction. How convenient when the administration wants us to ignore the next major step in the Star Wars program begins.

Star Wars - starve basic security agencies such as FBI field offices and force the Coast Guard to patrol the ocean in 1940 cutters - all so that George Jr can claim al Qaeda cannot attack us with intercontinental missiles. So that we don't remember this high level exercise in low intelligence, the administration troops out another al Qaeda terrorist?

If the guy had radioactive material, then maybe there was a concern. Presently he looks to be about as intelligent as Richard Reid - who couldn't even give himself a hotfoot without screwing it up.

The FBI middle managment had everything they needed to see a WTC bombing coming. They were so incompetent as to quash the facts. A bumbling, administration of right wing extremists cover up and deny knowledge of these facts for 6 months. When exposed, they announce a Homeland security office that does not even address the problem! We are expected to trust these mental midgets? With every White House announcement - including this rumored terrorist - one must ask what they might be trying to coverup. Never since Nixon have I so distrusted the man in the White House. His poltical agenda is more important than the country.

Global warming does not exist. Right. Which extremist told him to say that? Or did he make it all up on his own. How much closer did we really come to War with China over a propeller plane?

www.hereinreality.com/conspiracy/

There I've posted it....Now im on a database with the "Eff...Bee..EYE..for sure" Someone tell me where that farmhouse out in the sticks is, where we will meet.

Wonder who wants to jumpstart armageddon?

Forget the Illuminati....thy name is The Carlyle Group...

Is that someone jimmying the lock on the backdoor?
I gotta go......

Do you feel all dirty? :)

I agree. Folks, no matter how many times CNN parrots it stupid little graphics, <i>we are not at war</i>. Not unless you want to change the definition of war. Hey, while we're at it, why not make bananna mean apple and apple mean telephone? :)

In the real world, the government is not limited by the Constitution. In the real world, which is where people operate, including those who want to do the world great harm, the government is limited only by <i>what is politically viable.</i>

On one hand, this is scary, because it means that rights are not really guaranteed, that tyranny is just around the corner, etc.

On the other hand, as imperfect humans, we cannot possibly build a system that is perfect; we have to accept that we can only do the best we can.

In this particular case, it would appear that the imperfect political system has led to a better result. A dickweed who was specifically trained by al Queda and sent back to the US is, <i>in a perfect system</i>, someone you want to detain, deeply interrogate, and then send to prison for the rest of his life. Anyone trained by al Queda who is now in the US should be considered a clear and present danger until proven otherwise.

Because if you're concerned about what is politically viable now, just wait until you see what is politically viable after the next successful attack. If the next attack could not be thwarted because known terrorists were released or otherwise treated with kid gloves -- well, you won't recognize this country five years after that attack.

Tell that to the wives of the men that died fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The very simple fact of the matter is that we are at war. To make sure, I looked up what "war" means.

That sure sounds like what's going on to me. So, juju, why would we even need to bother changing the definition? That above definition fits <b>perfectly</b> the situation - a group (al Qaeda) is waging an armed and prolonged conflict against the United States and we, in return, are waging an armed and prolonged conflict against al Qaeda.

There may have been no formal declaration, but make no mistake about it, this is war. It might not be on the scale of World War II, but it is war nonetheless.

I now ask you and Griff to describe, in plain English as I have, how this current armed and prolonged conflict, carried on against al Qaeda, does not fit the definition of war.

Its not a open conflict thats why. The government is not carrying on a conflict with a nation, group, or individual. It is a war against a concept, just like the war on drugs and we've all seen the ludicris steps our government has taken in that fight. This guy is an American citizen; if we wish to claim the moral high ground in this fight we must stick to our morals. Hell, even the Rosenbergs got an open trial. It might not have been fair, but people could have stuck up for him. The point of the military tribunal is that the public doen't get to make any sort of judgements of its own regarding the evidence hell we don't even get to see the evidence, this makes me suspect that there isn't any. Mc Veih, and Kazinsky both got public trials and they actually blew things up. I'm hesitant to bring it up but notice that Walker who was fighting with the Taliban was white and this guy is not? Coincidence? Who the fuck knows cause we aren't being shown any proof. If this guy is tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in a Military Tribunal we have become the Taliban, period.

Give me a plausible end condition and I'll consider this. Until then, it's just the 1984 eternal war, and an excuse to strip our rights and liberties.

This guy is an American citizen, arrested on American soil, and not a member of the military. There is no excuse for not giving him an American civilian trial.

(But so far, all I've heard is he's being held in Navy facilities, not that he'll be denied a proper trial)

Is John Walker still an American citizen?

I mean he did take up arms against american soldiers.
But I'm sure leftist militia groups claim to be american citizens even though they would take up arms against american soldiers.

This is false. You seem intelligent, so I have to assume that you're willingly turning a blind eye to the facts. Here are the facts, and they are indisputable:

1) al Qaeda has executed attacks against United States citizens and interests
2) al Qaeda has all but formally admitted responsibility for the September 11 attacks
3) Soldiers are on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting to eliminate the enemy element
4) The enemy element is not defined as "terrorists" but as al Qaeda and Taliban, with an emphasis on al Qaeda

Those are <b>facts</b>. We can draw from those that we are engaged in armed (weapons) and prolonged (since October 7) conflict against a party or parties (Taliban and al Qaeda). There is no ambiguity here - men who are better than you or I are half way around the world fighting a clearly defined enemy whose goal is to wipe out our country.

Likening it to the War on Drugs (which <b>isn't</b> a war) is an attempt to further emotionally charge an already emotional issue. I'm not going to take your bait. The "war" against drugs is, very simply, not an armed conflict. Pot users are not flying planes into the DEA headquarters.

I'm glad that's what you suspect, but your "intuition" isn't going to make it so. If there is solid evidence, there is. If there isn't, there isn't. The government doesn't need to show it to you - you're not on the jury. Furthermore, it doesn't need to be released to <b>anyone</b> until they move further ahead on the timeline for a trial, whatever trial type that may be. Just because you feel there may not be evidence does not mean that there isn't any, and it doesn't mean that we should dismiss the notion that he's guilty. There will be a time and a place for review of the evidence. You and I do not make that call; those gathering the evidence against him do, and they're obviously not finished yet.

Again, you're trying to emotionally load your argument. <b>If</b> he's tried in a military tribunal... <b>If</b> he's sentenced to death... <b>then</b> we have become the Taliban.

Okay. How about... <b>If</b> he gets off and explodes a dirty bomb in Binghamton, we have aided and abetted terrorists, period.

See how I can garner support from the simpleminded just by adding some emotionally charged buzzwords to my argument? All of a sudden those same people that were agreeing with you are going "hmmm, he's got a good point... I don't want a dirty bomb going off."

The main problem in your final remarks is that you're using <b>if</b>. If this and if that. It doesn't really matter because that hasn't happened, and the other side can play that game too. No one wins that argument, and it's not worth going there. So let's argue this based upon facts instead, mmmmkay?

Based upon the dictionary definition, we are indeed involved in a war. You're right on that, dham.

However, for whatever reason, the United States is not considered "at war" until it is declared by Congress. In that case, we have not been at war since September 1945. Dubya, Congress, the administration, etc. can say that we are at war all they want. Are they right? Yes and no. By definition, yes...factually, no.

And Griff, the insurance companies have gotten smarter (or more sinister...half-full or half-empty). For example, when I worked for Signal, one of the exclusions was "hostile or warlike action."

Thats absurd! Bananas make better telephones. Have you never crashed in front of the tube on Saturday morning?

I dare you to back that up. Who makes that judgement? Who is the final authority in what is and what is not considered "at war"?

There have only been <b>five</b> declared wars in the history of the United States. We have been at war many more times.

The Revolutionary War. The Civil War. The Korean War. The Vietnam War.

None of those were declared wars, yet we were at war. You find a Vietnam veteran and tell him that he wasn't involved in war.

The fact of the matter is that only the War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish American War, World War I and World War II were declared. Do you really think that those are the only wars we've fought?

Actually, it was August of 1945. Not so much an arguing point as a clarification of the facts.

What "facts" are you looking at? There's no "no" about it, I'm sorry to say. We have involved our military in over 200 conflicts since 1798 and only have declared five. That doesn't mean that we weren't at war. They weren't all big wars, but some of them were. They were still wars. The declaration of war is an obsolete practice and will probably never happen again, though we will most certainly be engaged in wars in the future.

It's nice to argue that since we haven't declared war, we're not technically at war. Unfortunately, it's also blatantly untrue.

Allow me to rephrase: Only Congress can declare that the US is "officially" at war.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

The US is not officially at war. Do you deny this?

We have been in wars without a declaration of such. I'm not arguing that. You said it yourself: We have only been in 5 declared wars. The rest are not classified as "official wars." Vietnam and Korea, for example, are considered "police actions."

Japan agreed to surrender on 8/14/45, but the official end of WW2 was 9/2/45.

I have clarified part of my original post, regarding the determination of being "at war."

Later in that post, I stated that our President, the US Congress, and the Bush administration could say that we are at war, and all would be both right and wrong. Right because what is going on right now would meet the dictionary definition of "war." Wrong because Congress has not made a declaration of war, therefore, we are not officially at war. Would you say this is untrue?

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. It says that the states do not have the power to declare war.

I don't see anywhere that it prevents the president from doing so, or states that we are not at war until Congress says we are.

Of course, the original topic was whether Abdullah al-Mujahir must be tried under criminal law. I think it's pretty obvious that special circumstances are allowed in the case of an enemy combatant, which as far as I can tell he is.

Does this mean it's right to not try him in a regular criminal court? I'm not arguing for that at all. I agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, but I don't think any of us can show right now that this is the case.

I do think that we should make every attempt to take the moral high ground whenever possible and give combatants a criminal trial. But I also believe that there are certain cases, such as this, where we must ensure that this doesn't jeopardize national security.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


Just like any other Fed Gov action, Congress proposes and the President disposes (separation of powers). As Dham noted we've engaged in many conflicts without Congressional approval and I would argue that they would include our least justified "wars". UT noted that the Executive Branch will do whatever they can get away with, hence the overblown pronouncement on Padilla followed by Wolfowitz' more restrained comments, timed with the discussion of a new cabinet department. Presidents have long manipulated public opinion and Congress to get the power they want. Teddy Roosevelt having a limited purse and unlimited ambition sent a fleet half way around the world busting the War Department budget, forcing Congress to confisc... er find the money for a return voyage. Bush will make committments putting Congress in a box, forcing them to pony up. The Romans did the same thing, handing more and more power to the executive Caesar when the legislative Senate didn't have the stomach for the hard decisions. Attack of the Clones is based on the same formula.

Anyway Tob, we agree that they must be careful about revealing their sources of information so they don't lose any operatives or jeopardize security.

Cellar Court Ruling
 

I hereby petition His Most Excellent Supreme Judge Sycamore, having preliminarily ruled that the US can at once be warring and yet not at war to rule such judgement in effect law staying the hand of Griff as it hangs over a 32oz can of circular rhetorical whoop ass. Your justice is infinite and arbitrary.

Speaking of facts we'll start with an administration that has backed away from Ashcroft's statement that he was coming here to explode a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would only hurt the real estate it was exploded on if our goverment stockpiled potassium iodide tablets the way they have anthrax antibiotics. The reason for the dirty bomb is fear as the administration has already said, they then turn around and use the word dirty bomb and the word radiation four times in the announcement of the arrest. Who is using fear? I have also noticed everytime this guy is mentioned they also mentioned that this guy was in a gang, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The <b>fact</b> is he is a US citizen. The <b>fact</b> is he hasn't been charged. Guilty or not he should be let go. And if he does go and explode a bomb, it will be the government's fault for not followning it's own rules. Those rules are there for a reason, one I'm willing to risk my life for. Its that simple, as they say in NH "Live free or Die". As for your point that this is a war specifically against the Taliban and al Quada, what about the expasion of the police action to the Philipines, not because the groups are necesssarily affiliated with the either of the afore mentioned groups but because they are radical muslim groups. You'll also notice that there are over fifty groups of the government's list of known terrorist groups. Does that include the paramilitary groups we trained in Colombia that are now resposible for most of the kidnappings and killings? No, we are trying to give them even more money. Which we will continue to do until they are no longer useful, at which point we will brand them as terrorists. Thats the cynical game our government is playing and as long as we allow them to do so it is the same as us asking to have planes dropped on our heads.

Let's get this out of the way really quick. <b>I don't care.</b> We are talking about whether or not we are at war, not whether or not this guy has been charged. Personally, I agree with you that he should be charged. But <b>that is not what we are talking about</b>. I'm not going to fall for your diversionary tactics.

Yes, nevermind the fact that Abu Sayaaf is linked to al Qaeda. Even if they weren't, it still doesn't change the <b>fact</b> that they were holding <b>two</b> Americans as hostages and had <b>killed</b> another. We were involved in that operation before September 11 and will be finishing it soon (withdrawal date of June 30 I believe) now that the threat to American citizens has been alleviated. We're not fighting them because they're radical muslim groups; we're fighting them because they murdered an American citizen and held, for over a year, two others.

I'm not quite sure where you get this shit, but I'm guessing it's some totally leftist online rag. Here's a tip: read something else for a change.

The fact of the matter is that <b>nothing</b> our government does makes it <b>A-Okay</b> to murder over 3,000 <b>innocent</b> civilians. The terrorists may argue that, and you may believe it, but that doesn't make it okay. It's hardly the same as "us asking to have planes dropped on our heads". You apologists always crack me up. You say that from a distance because you're comfortably numb. You can argue that now... but I doubt you would if your child was killed in the World Trade Center. Sure, you'll sit here and say that you would, but you can't <b>know</b> because it hasn't happened to you. Suddenly it seems a little different... "She didn't deserve to die like that. She didn't support the presence of US troops on Saudi soil." Yeah. Then you begin to realize that really, no one deserved to die like that. It wasn't deserved. Let me tell you something: a lot of leftist kiddies died in those attacks too. A lot of people that probably <b>hated</b> Bush and probably even people that would have agreed with the bullshit you're spewing right here. Well, I'm sorry, but they weren't asking for planes to be dropped on their heads any more than the others were.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with whether or not we're at war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. We are, as simple as that.

sycamore - I'll respond more to you later. My contention is going to be that the Declaration of War is an outdated idea that is no longer practical and, therefore, will not be called in the future (unless it's a really <b>big</b> war). I'll flesh it out a little more later, but I have got to get everything done before I head out to California and after writing the above response, I have ten minutes less slack-off time.

Ok, motherfucker now I'm pissed. You're making a whole bunch of assumptions that you don't want to make. Number one, a girl that lived on my floor my freshman year of college did die in the twin towers. I spent that entire day on busy phone circuits trying to get through to all of my firends. My friend saw from the GW his girlfriend die. Another friend of a friend was seriously injured. So you best be sure what the fuck you are talking about next time you accusing someone of being on the outside. I just got done spending six months in one of the highest concentrations of nuclear power plants in North America. I know exactly what I said and what it means. And are you really going to tell me that all of the people killed in the pentagon were innocent? Give me a motherfucking break. And what I was talking about happened in Chile you ever hear of Pinochet? No? Thought not. You know where he was trained along with most of his top henchmen? Ft. Bragg. Now I'm pissed and going to have a cigarette...

You're really cute when you're angry! :)

Do me a favor: come talk to me again when you lose a child in a terrorist attack. I'm pretty sure that's what I said, and I'm not interested in talking to you about it until you have. A guy I knew died as well. That hardly equates to losing a child.


I never said anything about the Pentagon. As I've said before, attacks on military targets are much more legitimate than attacks on civilians. So while the Pentagon was pretty disgusting (and it's where I lost my coworker), it's easier to justify. What is even more disgusting, and unjustifiable, are all the innocent people on the plane that slammed into the Pentagon. Are you really going to tell me that all of the people killed on flight 77 were deserving of a death sentence? Give me a motherfucking break.

See how that works both ways? I took your words and substituted a few of mine. We can do this forever. Shall we continue?

Again, it doesn't matter. Let me put it in language you will understand: It's wholly motherfucking irrelevant, motherfucker. We're not talking about Augusto Pinochet. We're talking about whether or not we're at war against al Qaeda and, to a lesser degree, the Taliban. I'm perfectly able to sit here and talk Pinochet with you all day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time. If you're willing to leave the emotion at the door and speak rationally, we can do so. We'll probably even find that we agree on a number of things. But if you're going to keep running off on tangents because you're pissed off, I'm not going to spend any time addressing them. Pinochet has nothing to do with the military action against al Qaeda.

Maybe you should take a break after you read this. Go relax. Play some games, watch some TV, do whatever it is you do in your spare time. Then, when you can respond rationally instead of emotionally, come back and write a response. Otherwise, I have no interest in addressing you any further.

In remembrance of this day in history, June 13, 1966, and his latin American heritage, Jose Padilla a.k.a. Abdullah al Muhajir, is changing his name to Miranda Padilla.

That was definiatly emotion talking but you also have to understand a couple of things about what you said and why I was upset. I spent most of that time sleeping less that four hours a night, I lived in a no fly zone. The terror attack terrorized me, but I'll be damned if that means that somebody is going to terrorizing me out of what I believe in. At this point though, it isn't the "terrorists" any longer. At this point its the people that look at me as if I am guilty in thier eyes. It doesn't matter for what, since 9/11 I have been treated as though I'm less of an american for not having flags waving everywhere, that because I think that the constitution is more than an idol to which we pay homage but disregard as a relic of a time long forgotten. Those are emotions sure but they are facts as well. I could cut my hair, dress like everybody else and I'd get hassled less I'm sure but then haven't I lost something I now have? And then the question becomes how much do I have to change to not have people treat me as less than deserving of the very rights this country is supposed to stand for. Not far away from that is the question is where is the line between someone who can be viewed as dangerous? I have a degree in chemstry, I am outspoken in my views, when do they come for me? You asked me how I would feel if I had a child in one of those buildings? I would hate those resposible with all my heart. But I would still rather have that child dead than living in a world where her thoughts could put it into danger? You say that that won't happen, but if the constitution is irrelevant what is going to stop it from reaching that point? We are on a slippery slope right now that goes into a deep chasim, I for one do not want to cut my safety ropes. You say that I have been duped? I ask then whom should I believe and why? The reason that this is all still on the topic is this sets a precident that no one has ever dared to employ, even the darkest hour of our most terrible war. Habis corpus has been suspended in the past but that was a presidential order from the Civil War which is a set of circumstances that do not apply here. What if I had a child with my ex? They would have been raised Muslim, what kind of world would I have been sending them out into? If we are going to crack down on terrorists, thats one thing, there are already more than enough laws on the books that are constitutional that there must be another reason for the recent events, whether that be some conspiricy geek's wet dream or just simple laziness, it is unnecessary. Show me bin Laden's head on a stake, I won't flinch, but then say we are done, or if not at least share a plausible plan with concrete goals and a forseeable end. Maybe while we're at it we may want to question what draws youth into these roles as mass murderers. Its a social phenomenon, not a couple of random acts and those phenomenon have factors that deterimined them. Why not fight the cause instead of the symptom. Morphine may cure pain but its antibiotics that cure diseise.

[steps down off of soapbox]

First off, I wanted to thank you for being more calm that time around. It's easier to read and it helps to keep this from degenerating into a flamefest. I want to hear what you have to say. Really.

Secondly, I apologize for tweaking you. It was unintentional, but I regret that my words had that effect on you. They were not meant that way.

Now, on to your post...

I agree with you. I don't want to see people terrorized. At all. And that's part of my point - I don't think that <b>you</b> deserved to be terrorized just because you pay your taxes. I don't think that Laura deserved to die because she went to work that Tuesday morning. There are a lot of people that seem to not know exactly how to cope with this - and that's normal, it's part fo being human. But they end up blaming themselves, blaming the public... for something they didn't cause.

I agree that our government has done some pretty awful things. I agree that our government is, right now, doing many things wrong. But no matter what they do, no matter what our foreign policy is, no matter where our troops are stationed overseas... that does not justify the terror you were put through. It does not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians. It never will.

Unfortunately, human beings are imperfect. They do stupid things. Like create outcasts. It's a shame that you're treated as one.

I can't say I wholly know how you feel, because I don't have the same problem. My hair is long, my views are what would be considered "less than wholesome" by many in the country... I don't tuck my shirt in... but I have not been treated as an outcast since the attacks.

However, I've spent the entirety of my life being different. Sometimes it's the long hair. Sometimes it's the fact that I only have one eye. Sometimes it's the fact that I was "underprivileged". Furthermore, my sister has been outcast her entire life for various other reasons, such as the way she dressed. I have seen her pain and I have felt my own. I know that it's not pleasant.

In other words, I'm with you on that one.

The sad-but-true answer: If you're pale, never. If you're of middle eastern descent, whenever you make a big enough stink that you get their attention. They might not come and get you, but they'll be watching.

Unfortunately, it's a tough situation and it's one that you need to weigh out carefully. Ask yourself "What is it that I really want out of this?" and then act accordingly. I understand that you want to be free in your speech and relatively free (i.e., not murdering babies) in your actions... but sometimes it's best to know when to quit. I really don't think that our country is going to downward spiral into the hell that it seems you're envisioning (and I'll explain why later), so it may be best to get on with your life and let the message take a back seat. They're certainly words that deserve to be heard... but you don't want to end up under intense surveilance because of them. Or at least, I wouldn't.

And that's the beauty of that one fine document. It won't ever be irrelevant. The Bill of Rights won't be irrelevant. Simply put, the public will not ever let that happen.

It's really easy to give the goahead to hassle terrorists and blow up their shit. It's going to be much more difficult to pull it off against American citizens. For a number of reasons. The first is that public opinion is much less supportive of the idea that American citizens can <b>be</b> terrorists. Especially after Lindh gets acquitted (which he probably will). The public is going to realize that hey, this whole "everyone is a terrorist until proven innocent" thing really sucks. They'll be hassled in ways that make their lives less easy and all of a sudden they hate the idea of this crackdown. Imagine, for example, that the government outlawed SUVs because "those who were driving them were aiding the terrorists". Nevermind that this is actually probably true - the backlash would be substantial because <b>it interferes with the everyday living</b> of many Americans. They'll say "this is fucking absurd" and ignore it.

Some things are going to be okay obviously - increased security at airports, though flawed in its implementation, is a <b>good thing</b>. We really don't need someone flying a plane into the Sears Tower. But when you need to get stripsearched to go into the supermarket, there's going to be some very strong backlash.

The second is that the media won't let it happen to you. As soon as someone is publicly being investigated for links to terrorism, their face is all over every TV news channel and website in the nation. There's way too much attention for the government to make any big fuckups - after all, the other governments in the world will now be able to see it along with the public. The US goverment can't risk it unless they have absolute proof that someone is really a terrorist. Otherwise their story falls apart (as is happening with Lindh).

Maybe it will be illegal to publish against the government. In which case, it will still happen - on the internet, no doubt. And all of a sudden, people are still getting their information. The entire public wants to read about this stuff. And the government is simply unable to lock us all up.

All of this is assuming a worst case scenario. I honestly don't think we'll get there. There are a lot of corrupt people in the government, but it is far from 100%. Those that are moderates (read: those that have not been driven to extremism by emotion) will work to ensure that we don't reach that point. I don't believe they'll have that hard of a time, because I don't think that there are many in our government that really want to see us get there.

This has gotten far too long and I have far too much work to get done before I go to California to continue this post. Let me just say again that I appreciate you stepping back and making a thoughtful post, and I, in turn, will do the same.

Isn't it a little too early to assume this won't happen? It's only been 9 months since September, fer chrissakes. Getting bin Laden wouldn't be the end of it, but crushing al Qaeda and related terrorist networks probably would be.

We are at war. Or in a war. Or conducting a war, or whatever you want to call it. It's not as well-defined and it's a little harder to put our finger on than many wars we've been in, but we're still at war.

During a war, you hold enemy combatants and try to get information from them to help you in the war. When the war's over, as it one day will be (when either our objectives are met or the public gets tired of it), you try them or return them to their country or whatever.

And Padilla is an enemy combatant. It doesn't matter that he's an American citizen if we have reason to believe he was working with our war enemy and planning to kill Americans. We are at war, and he is an enemy combatant.

Spin-man, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I think you're missing something really important here.

The fact that people have an attitude towards people who are different doesn't really rank on the scale of injustices. It turns out that they are enjoying their freedom just as much as you are. Their ability to openly express their opinion of you is wonderful. They may be ignorant intolerant assholes, but they are allowed. They can look at you sideways, treat you with disrespect, etc. but both sides retain their choices and their freedom.

It is exactly that openness that infuriates the enemy. You say you want the ability to raise a child in another religion without experiencing intolerance? Then you want to fight this war hard. You are in favor of civil rights? That's what this is all about. (If you're killed, your civil rights have kinda been violated.)

The idea that they found a flimsy pretense to hold Padilla is, in that way, comforting. Knowing that we aren't perfect about rights to begin with, the most important thing is that we try hard. That means that, in this case, the govt had to construct a reason to keep the guy, and the rest of the country had to be convinced that it was reasonable. Even though chances are damn near 100% that he was specifically trained by the enemy and sent here to be part of the network.

Can one raise a Muslim child in this country? The answer is undoubtedly yes, and that child can grow up to be very prosperous and successful. Can one raise a Christian or Jewish child in radically Islamic countries? Not under any circumstances.

Consider that 10% of the people living in Israel are Arabs, and that some Arabs have been freely elected to the Israeli government. That's a beautiful thing; can you imagine the level of tolerance and understanding needed to get to that point?

Re: Cellar Court Ruling/Kangaroo Court
 

I hereby declare my judgement to be law, certified in the City and County of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, on Sunday June 16, 2002.

We are adjourned. :)

I agree with this to a point.

At the same time, IMO, one of the cornerstones of our government is the separation of power among the 3 branches. Griff touched on this in an earlier post. He mentioned Teddy Roosevelt, and I would throw in LBJ. I think it's important to keep that separation of power, to keep all parties in check. As I understand it, the War Powers Act is meant to further keep the President in check, to avoid another Vietnam. (Though I don't know enough background to say how well this has worked in situations like Grenada, Persian Gulf, etc.)

Jules Witcover of the Baltimore Sun wrote an interesting op-ed piece in May, regarding the War Powers Act and a possible attack on Iraq.