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.
| 