Posted on 11/21/2001 9:29:08 AM PST by Croooow
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?
Sometimes I just can’t figure that guy out. Right now he’s on a tear about this military tribunals thing. Barr doesn’t like it, and I frankly don’t understand why.
I’ve read the President’s Executive Order. I agree that there are some troubling aspects there …we can tear those apart later. Right now let’s deal with this military tribunal thing in the context of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Let’s say that some of our Special Forces guys are wandering around Ashcanistan and here comes Osama holding his hands high … he’s giving up. At this point our guys have four real options.
The best option? Kill the SOB. A gut shot, not one of those Special Forces headshots. Let the bastard suffer.
But, let’s say he lives and is captured. Look more closely at the options.
A UN Trial.
Oh this would be just wonderful. Since the day the United Nations was formed it has been unfriendly toward the United States. In recent decades the UN has been nothing less than an US taxpayer funded soapbox for every petty dictator and activist in the world who has a gripe against America.
Of late the UN has become more than an international anti-American soapbox. The UN is feeling quite bold right now. Just a few months before the terrorist attacks the UN chastised the State of Arizona for going forward with an execution the UN didn’t want to happen. The UN actually stated that Arizona was subject to the mandates of the UN courts and that election had been illegally conducted.
Also, have you ever paid attention to the UN’s signature document when it comes to human rights? This human rights treaty was touted by Bill Clinton as the finest document in support of freedom in the history of the world. Others might feel that honor belongs to the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. But, no. Clinton says the UN Human Rights Declaration is Numero Uno! Without belaboring this point – you might be interested to know that the UN Human Rights Declaration clearly states that humans have NO rights when it comes to the goals and purposes of the United Nations.
So .. try Bin Laden or some other terrorists captured in Afghanistan before a UN court? A UN court is an anti-American court. The trial would turn into a spectacle wherein the great unwashed would parade in front of international television camera to denounce America as the “true” terrorist Nation. The actual trial of the terrorists would only be a subplot to the anti-American agenda on center stage.
Try him in a US Court.
As soon as we drag that dirt bag over to the United States he immediately earns the protection of the United States Constitution. Yup – that’s right. As long as the terrorist (or any other criminal, for that matter) is (a) not an American citizen and (b) not physically in America, he is not entitled to the protection of our Constitution. No right to an attorney. No right to a jury trial. No right to confront his witnesses. No right to appeal. But … once they’re here, all bets are off.
Can you just imagine a trial on American soil of Osama Bin Laden? Who would want to serve on that jury? Every juror would be a marked man or woman for the rest of their lives --- IF, that is, they voted to convict. Osama is very media savvy. He would seize the opportunity to turn the trial into a spectacle of anti-Americanism. Why do we want to invite such a spectacle to take place right here at home?
A Military Tribunal
George Washington did it. So did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln did it on American soil with American defendants. The Supreme Court passed on it. No problem.
There is no law, no court ruling, no precedent which confers rights under the United States Constitution on non-citizens who commit crimes overseas.
Look, the young men and women we sent over there in the American uniforms don’t get full constitutional protection if they commit a crime while in our armed services. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Isn’t it somewhat strange that those opposed to military tribunals for the terrorists want them to enjoy more rights than our own military men would have?
I do have a theory about those on the left who oppose the tribunal idea. They WANT an anti-American spectacle. They know a terrorist trial – especially one of Bin Laden – would be the media event of the decade. What a time for them to wheel out their anti-American agenda?
But how does that explain Bob Barr?
Geez LSJohn. What can I say in reply to that? That the Constitution of the United States of America is so purely an exercise in abstraction that it cannot any longer deal with real, breaking events? With real facts "on the ground?" And I'd always thought that its genius mainly consisted in its agile ability to adapt to, and respond to, any particular, evolving state of "facts."
Five thousand dead Americans: You'd think somehow the Constitution would have some application to a situation like this. Are you saying that it does not?
If what you are saying, bottom line, is: Why doesn't Congress declare war??? Wouldn't that clarify things enormously?
Problem seems to be, however: All former declarations of war in all of human history have named a particular state or states against whom the particular (defensive) war is alleged to be justly propagated. To whom or what should Congress address its complaint in this case -- should it ever see fit to pronounce one?
We live in a world entirely unlike the one that subsisted on September 10th. We as a people need to figure out how to successfully, productively deal with an entirely unaccustomed -- and highly innovative -- set of (non-state) perpetrators and the resultant state of facts that they adduce into human existence in the U.S.A. and elsewhere in the West.
I have more questions than answers right about now. But I do not question the integrity of the present Administration; nor the sincerity and dedication of its collective effort in defense of the Constitution and the American people.
But it's late; I'm sleepy; so time to go to bed. May your Thanksgiving be filled with love and grace and happiness, LSJohn. All my best to you and yours. -- bb.
That goes double for me!
Happy Thanksgiving
So just to have some fun with a "thought experiment," and to "humor" you, I decided to play devil's advocate, and try a different assumption, and see where it leads.
For that purpose, I put on "the Left Progressive hat" (i.e., positivist, materialist, atheist, utilitarian -- we're talking Comte and Marx here), and tried to figure how the question would fall out under that conceptual framework. That meant I had to dust off the old "leftist playbook." Here's how that game of "incrementalism" would go, in all probability (given we have a decent body of historical evidence that bears on this phenomenon to judge by, by now):
(1) First, Americans are effectively persuaded that deprivation of civil rights can only happen to non-citizen "aliens" -- ones who look to be "terrorists." American citizens are told that our Bill of Rights liberties could never be taken way from us. We buy it.
This would be the opening "camel's nose under the tent."
(2) But come's a time when the camel "gets into bed with you": Contemporaneous with this promise -- which has been successfully sold to, and accepted by, "public opinion" -- is at least the rumor I've heard that the FBI has actually been working on a "profile" of the "domestic terrorist." (Presumably, the "domestic" part intends actual citizens.)
Now that profile -- Items on the list: A citizen who studies, discusses, and/or quotes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a lot. (Strike 1.) A citizen that questions the authoritative (constitutional) basis of any public official or public order (or heaven forfend, withholds a portion of his income tax payments on grounds of conscience). (Strike 2.) A citizen who possesses firearms of any description. (Steeeee-riiiiiike 3 -- You're OUT!)
There's more on that list, I gather. But enuf said.
(3) So now all the gummint would have to do is find that, well, (1 above) was "all about terrorists" in the first place. So, since this is a "global war on terrorism," we got "to stamp out our own home-grown variety or we'll never finish the job." (The public will buy that, too -- in due course. Just stage an event -- like the Murrah Building -- to demonstrate the wisdom of this course.)
And thereby Americans can be safely relegated into a more-or-less permanent serfdom. With their own approval.
Well, whatever you think of my humble little exercise, I did try to see the problem from a different point of view! :^)
But I'm still where I was before, LSJohn: I STILL have more questions than answers. So we're in the same boat it seems. I guess all we really can do is keep our eyes wide open; and raise bloody hell, en masse if at all possible (there being strength in numbers they say), if need be.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. All my best -- bb.
Thanks, Demidog, for reminding us of what we all should know. There are no exceptions for war written anywhere in the Constitution. The problem is, thanks to various historical precedents, there are such things as "customary usages" which do not seem to offend the People.
Which is the best argument I can think of in favor of the proposition that the People really need to be getting back to "basics" right about now. Either we will understand, respect, and live the Constitution, or we will lose it. Seems pretty simple to me.
BTW, I never said any human right was a grant of the state. The reason we don't want to lose the Constitution is because it defends our rights against naked state power, and demands that the state guarantee and uphold the sovereign rights of persons. But you already knew that (I think). All my best, bb.
I was just noticing siomething you had said regarding "don't worry about the immigrants" etc etc.
We should always worry when our government manufactures an excuse to pretend that people and persons mean "citizen."
That bankrupt idea was promulgated in Dred Scott v Sanford and was upheld as a matter of fact in US v Verdugo Urquidez but the Court doesn't want to admit that it is actually upholding Dred Scot.
The 14th Amendment supposedly repudiates Dred Scot but in reality it actually confirms Dred Scot as a valid decision.
That kind of thinking (bill of rights only applies to citizens) needs to be squashed like a bug in my not so humble opinion.
Now you've fixed it! Even if I still worry that I don't fully understand your position, at least I know you understand mine.
You hit several of my concerns right on the noggin' (although I'm not wearin' that "the Left Progressive . . . positivist, materialist, atheist, utilitarian" crap!) What if someone less than what you think and I hold out hope that GW is could run with this?
You . . are . . the . . best!
Thanks
They were to bin Laden and Al Quaeda. When the one eyed mullah was tried in New York for bombing the WTC in 1993, all sorts of what should have been classified information on the engineering of the WTC became public knowledge.
Did that help the attackers decide where to crash the planes in order to do the most damage? We will probably never know but it damn sure could have.
How about if US operatives are identified? Witnesses? The jury?
One of the purposes of the tribunal is to keep classified and secret what must remain so.
DD, I was being facetious in the context. I concede your point: Human rights are human rights, not just "American rights."
OTOH, the Constitution was never designed to be "a suicide pact," either. The situation is a lot more complex than a simple recitation of universal principles would lead one to believe, on the surface at least.
Personally, I do not have the wisdom to draw the line, to find the proper balance on the critical questions that face our people and our country. The United States is not the United Nations, after all. I don't like to get too "'global" in my thinking, because I prefer nation states to the One World Order. (Especially my own.) all my best -- bb.
Just as we should worry when we pretend that terrorists and saboteurs are just plain ole criminals.
Barr is a patriot! Darn good man. Believes in the Rule of Law unlike the slimy Demorats
What else should we pretend? That we can execute people and hold them indefinately even though we don't have enough evidence to prosecute them?
No it wasn't. But there are already remedies in the document for terrorists. Rather than second guess the founders, we should get Ron Paul's Letters of Marque and Reprisal act of 2001 out of committee and see how well it works.
We've tried the unconstitutional methods now lets try what was prescribed and see if it works. We can always go back to violating the rights of immigrants indescriminantly if it doesn't.
We are killing terrorists by the bunch every day in Afghanistan. That must be who you are referring to because nobody in America has been executed with or without evidence.
Are you opposed to the killing being done in Afghanistan?
and hold them indefinately even though we don't have enough evidence to prosecute them?
The recent Supreme Court decision on illegals is directly contrary to this hyperbole. Illegals can be held as long as they want.
In fact, the Geneva Convention permits the holding of suspected saboteurs and terrorists incommunicado. Were you aware of that?
The thing is, most of us would trust you more in your "lack of wisdom" [my 4$$] to make those difficult decisions because of our faith in your incorruptibility. Integrity means far more than intellect or politcal persuasion. GW is surrounded by those who determine what information he is given, and lay out the alleged options from which he must make his choices. Too much of it is easily manipulable by those less trustworthy than he (may be.)
This will always be the case with the single person who occupies the presidency, and that is why I worry so about the power of the executive branch (FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, DEA, EPA, SS, USMarshals, Pentagon, DIA, ONI, NSA, Justice Dept., Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Coast Guard, Customs, etc, etc, etc.)
I do approve of military courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.