FC: More on Bush weighs military tribunals for suspected terrorists

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 24 2001 - 05:56:24 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Why liberty suffers during wartime -- a historical view"

    *********
    
    [Eric was replying to my query about suspending habeas corpus. --DBM]
    
    Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 07:25:58 -0400
    From: "Eric M. Freedman" <LAWEMFat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Bush weighs military tribunals for suspected	terrorists
    To: declanat_private
    
    -Depends on the details of the proposal, but it could mean that - which 
    might very well lead to a fight over the not-entirely-resolved issue of 
    whether the suspension power is in the President or the Congress. -E.
    
    *********
    
    Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 01:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Tom Collins <tommycat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: FC: Bush weighs military tribunals for suspected terrorists
    
    On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
    
     > (This would mean suspending habeas corpus, right?)
    
    A helluva way to become Lincolnesque, but it's already been done for
    noncitizens, whether they are here legally or not.
    
    *********
    
    From: "Thomas Junker" <tjunkerat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 02:40:53 -0500
    Subject: Re: FC: Bush weighs military tribunals for suspected terrorists
    
    Declan,
    
    With respect to the present vast confusion between the rules of law
    that apply to citizens and, mostly, to residents and others present
    within our borders and the rules of war:
    
         Criminal law and procedure are one thing;
    
         War is something entirely different.
    
    In war, there are no defendants; there are enemies.  In war the idea
    is to kill your enemies and destroy their property.
    
    This distinction can be maintained only if people being dealt with
    under the rules of war are not identifiable as U.S. citizens and are
    not transported to our country.  In our territory government is
    limited by the Constitution.  Exceptions made for reasons stated
    nowhere in the Constitution are done only at great peril.  Rules on
    treatment of prisoners do not stem from our Constitution, they come
    from international accords.  They can be changed or ignored.  Since
    their formal inception in the last century they mostly *have* been
    ignored by all except the U.S. and her allies.
    
    At first blush I don't have a problem with military tribunals
    conducted in foreign territories against foreign hostiles.
    
    At first, second or third blush I do think that those who talk about
    due process or other consitutional and procedural aspects of
    criminal and civil justice in the context of prosecuting a war
    extraterritorially are more than a bit confused, and I'm being
    overly generous at that.  The authority for conducting summary
    proceedings and executing particularly nasty hostiles in the field
    can probably be created out of whole cloth, but cloth of a type
    exclusive to the sovereignty of nations, and will no doubt serve
    quite well.
    
    In any case I am far, far less concerned about the propriety of how
    the culprits and their ilk are dealt with on their or their hosts'
    territories than I am about any such tactics being employed within
    our borders.  Most if not all the proposals for implementation
    within the U.S. that have already begun to surface from the usual
    suspects merely punish law-abiding Americans for what hostile
    foreigners have done and may be thought to be planning to do,
    without providing any meangingful protections against terrorists.
    Saturday, Fox aired a rebroadcast of an undercover report on airport
    security that made it crystal clear that all the hoopla of airport
    security since its inception has been form without substance, mere
    pap to sooth the masses.  A repetition of the recent tragedy can be
    prevented *only* by securing the cockpits and preventing or
    prohibiting opening the cockpit under *all* circumstances during
    flight and before and after flight when any passengers at all are on
    board.  No matter what happens in the cabin, only those on board are
    at risk if the cockpit remains secure.  The probability that a
    disabled or out of control airliner would, purely by chance, wreak
    the kind of devastation we saw on Sep 11, is extremely remote no
    matter what transpires in the cabin, and would be even more remote
    if flight paths were never lined up with population centers while
    within 500 or 1,000 miles.
    
    The second thing that could be done supposedly is being done but far
    too late and probably with far too many constraints:  have at least
    one armed agent aboard all flights.  Such agents should be
    thoroughly indoctrinated in the new reality that in the extreme, the
    entire plane and all crew and passengers are expendable to prevent
    ten times or greater the same loss should the plane become a guided
    missile.
    
    We will probably also have to make it very clear to the nutcase
    groups and their sponsors that any other mass destruction by
    whatever means directed against us will result in those groups and
    their sponsors being turned into radioactive ash.  Hey, if it's
    going to be us or them, I'm for toasting *them*, in a heartbeat.
    For that matter, I think everyone everywhere who wants to die for
    Allah in twisted hatred of the U.S. should be helped speedily along
    to his destination.
    
    Here at home, the people who immediately jump up to propose that we
    gut our own freedoms in response to this attack are, I believe, very
    sick in their own right.  I will put up with enormous inconvenience
    in matters that are discretionary, such as air travel, but I will
    brook no weasels trying to use this moment to undermine the very
    thing that is the sole reason for existence of this nation:
    freedom.
    
    Ellison, you're a self-serving asshole.  Judd, you're a thinly
    disguised fascist.  If either of you had any shame at all you'd step
    down and live in a cave for the rest of your life.
    
    Thank you, Declan, for your continuing excellent reporting.
    
    Regards,
    
    Thomas Junker
    tjunkerat_private
    
    *********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 06:58:14 PDT