Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: cansomeoneexplain

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 06 Feb 13 8:41 PM | 75 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 12619 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12618 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

That Sept 11 happened and that the state (the US in this case) has the right to protect itself is broadly accepted.

That this includes the use of force abroad to eliminate established threats is also broadly accepted.

The hazard is in pretending that the state of affairs regarding terrorism somehow affords one the opportunity to play outside the rules.

Some argue that the US should not play with one hand tied behind its back, that the cumbersome nature of due process need be nudged aside when one considers the magnitude of the threat.

I believe this notion is rubbish. The US always fights with one hand tied behind its back. Clinton fired a bunch of missiles into Tora Bora back in 1998(?) to get bin Laden, an event some viewed in a tail wagging the dog Lewinsky distraction fashion. The effort failed. The effort could have succeed. I am confident that a dozen or so nuclear warheads would have rooted him out. Ah ... but the US tied that hand behind its back. One always fights with self-imposed rules. One must choose which rules to self-impose. In that case nuclear obliteration was ruled out. Cheney it seems may be a bit more flexible on that.

The point is, to the extent that we have constitutions and laws, and to the extent that they constrain the actions of the state towards its citizens, AND given that the current state of affairs is deemed PERMANENT (WWII e.g. was never stated or believed to be a permanent state of affairs), then it seems one is obligated to consider and recognize the ramifications of the executive dispensing with a considerable portion of the constitution PERMANENTLY. Perhaps tea-partiers are enemies of the state. Drug king pins, drug runners, heck .. drug users. The executive simply needs to sign off on "enemy of the state" and due process is voided.

Due process is due process. Notions of war and enemy combatants and suspension of rules during defined 'war powers' scenarios have a long history.

I am unaware of precedent for declaring a permanent war, installing permanent war powers, and permanently voiding due process.

I'm not saying I am for or against current policy, I just think it is instructive to observe current policy for what it is.


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: cansomeoneexplain*
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Wed, 06 Feb 13 8:20 PM 		Msg. 12618 of 54959

Hi JT,

You may have missed the stories this week about the special rules for killing US citizens with drones.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/americas-disturbing-rules-for-assassinating-americans

The gap between the rules for foreigners and the rules for Americans is the special protection we were discussing.

Dig pointed out there is a legal distinction here which competes with the notion of due process. Due process has ancient origins and is a key protection for individuals against the state.

"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." - Magna Carta

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

I am trying to think through the reason for the distinction between US terrorists and foreign ones.

I am not arguing the right of the US to use some means to defend itself against future attacks. A state is almost always justified in protecting its citizens.

But the question how it does so is always in play.

Obviously, some say the US brought its terrorism problems upon itself. That is not an argument I have employed. I have never thought there was a viable justification for terrorism.

At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that drone strikes create new terrorists. My usual formulation. For every brother, sister, friend or parent killed you may create 10 new people susceptible to resistance. For every child killed, perhaps 100. There's a reason al qaeda keeps metastasizing. In my view, it is borne of rage, humiliation, the sense of impotence.

There's no cost free form of engagement. Killing people from unmanned aerial vehicles based presumably on limited information at the risk of adding innocent bystanders to the kill list is a new form of justice.

Can you figure why terrorists attack US embassies and consulate offices? Why they attack tourists and foreign people working in the region?

They will find people to kill.

So there is a question about drones. Are they simply displacing murders into more vulnerable populations of US citizens?

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next