Letters to the Editor
-
"anti-American"
That expression has always perplexed me. You never hear about someone in Italy being called "anti-Italian," for instance, and if a French-speaking Belgian has ever been referred to as "anti-Walloon," the fact has escaped my notice.
If the term were to have any meaning at all, it would have to refer to the ideals and institutions that bind this particular set of immigrants together as a nation. Foremost among these would, by any reckoning, be the United States Constitution, which reads in part
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
and
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
One who stands against such principles would have to be called "anti-American."
Yes, nauseating.
-
Good thing nobody really feels that way.
It is the only word for a worldview that has Scooter Libby as a kind of facsist war criminal and Abdullah Al-Muhajir, f/k/a Jose Padilla, ex-Chicago gang member, turned terror-tourist, as a kind of paragon of freedom fighters for civil liberties.
Because that would be nauseating. Fortunately the people you describe only exist in your twisted imagination. Everyone knows that Scooter Libby isn't a war criminal. He's merely a security risk. And Padilla isn't a Freedom fighter. He's merely a guinea pig.
-
An awful lot of ifs
And when all of this occurs on the soil or in the airspace of the United States? No difference. If Muhajir had been one of the 9/11 hijackers, and if he had been in the air long enough, we know what his fate would have been, per the orders of the President and the Vice President; scramble fighters and shoot down the plane.
Elephantman
So now we're executing on hypotheticals? Part of the One Percent Doctrine or something? Not to mention that you aren't aware of everyone's capabiities in your unreal scenario. Nobody gave orders to shoot down anything until all planes had either reached their targets or crashed, all told 1hr17min. In the air long enough to read all of My Pet Goat from cover to cover. George ibn George and Ricardo al Cheni didn't know how to protect the country then, and they don't know now. And we aren't asking what kind of guy Jose Padilla is, we are asking what kind of monsters work for your beloved President.
-
As deficient our strategies for handling these threats
Our legal system is woefully behind the times. This whole situation evolved out of a legal system that felt compelled to make it up as they went along because there were no clear guidelines otherwise. Say what you will about rights and such. This is not so clear. Terrorism or the threat of terrorism does not play by rules. It does not wait for you and your mobbed up lawyers to bail you out, intimidate witnesses and so on. Laws are wonderful things, but sometimes after the fact. If that makes people uncomfortable then they have to come up with a better system of handling these situations.
BTW lots of countries have laws that incarcerate people for long stretches without charge or trial. Like.....England, France and Germany.
-
It's a good thing...
That the right-wing is so dedicated to keeping us safe from treror!
Let's see it in action:
Pakistan provided military aid, troops to Taliban
John Bryne
Pakistan, one of President Bush's stalwart allies in the "War on Terror," gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to 9/11, according to newly released documents.
Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by George Washington University's National Security Archive, the documents provide a striking contrast to the Administration's portrayal of Pakistan. They show that Pakistan not only supplied arms and troops to train and fight alongside the extremist group
To read the rest, click my name
-
yes, Padilla is and was a "nobody"... how much of an actual threat he ever posed is suspect ....
yes, surveillance "worked" .. he was "intercepted" before a crime was committed (or even planned or equipment assembled or necessary technical expertise obtained, etc.)...
I've never read anything that convinced me Padilla was ACTUALLY part of a GENUINE shadowy network of international terrorism ...
There will always be wannabes and copycats ... these people are not the movers and shakers ... (which doesn't mean that they are of zero risk, however, both their motivations and potential effectiveness are simply less ... they're followers, groupies, starry-eyed new converts)
Indefinite detention (and TORTURE) based on potential FUTURE bad acts??
no. that's excessive.
-
"say what you will about rights and such"
You say what you will; I for one am not giving up a right guaranteed since the Thirteenth Fucking Century for something that killed as many people as choked on steak in 2001.
-
Not everyone is innocent, and not every case is ironclad
I'm not saying that everyone prosecuted by the Feds (as opposed to the locals) is innocent as a lamb.
What's wrong with the picture is the fact that they held him for how many years without charges, then got told to charge him or let him go, and then charged him with the vaguest notion of "conspiracy to commit" charges that you can come up with.
Something is very wrong when you can't prosecute someone on solid evidence and what you do have is manufactured for the occasion.
They did that in this case after they had kept him in solitary confinement without access to the court system for at least 4 years. That's what an American citizen rates in our beloved "Justice for All" system.
I question the entire system. I have reason to, and I will stand behind the statements I made.
-
Derbig, old chum
Could you try that link again, please?
-
Long stretches without charge or trial
Anonymous (05:10 PM): "Lots of countries have laws that incarcerate people for long stretches without charge or trial. Like.....England [...]."
Which was one of the reasons we fought and won a REVOLUTION.
-
Lupercus
You can shout all you want but rights are attained or dialed back seemingly at will, over time. I'm sure there were people in 1920 who thought that it was a man's SOLE right to vote, since the 13th fucking century too. But the fact remains that rights do indeed change with the times and the circumstances. The problem is with the laws, not rights. Our laws aren't built to handle cases like this. Or, we could simply refuse to prosecute anyone suspected of terrorism. Which might not be a bad thing in the end either.