"People Who Don't Understand How America Works"

Sunday, May 28. 2006

"People Who Don't Understand How America Works"

Andrew Sullivan has this for his "Quote for the Day":

"That's how this group of Bush followers thinks America is supposed to work. If you are a U.S. citizen, the President can unilaterally order you abducted and imprisoned; does not have to charge you with any crime; can block you from speaking with anyone, including a lawyer; can keep you incarcerated indefinitely (meaning forever); and can deny you the right to any judicial review of your imprisonment or any mechanism for challenging the accuracy of the accusations. And oh - while it would be nice if we could preserve all of that abstract lawyer nonsense about the right to a jury trial and all that, we're really scared that Al Qaeda is going to kill us, so we can't," - Glenn Greenwald, on his blog yesterday.

When I read stuff like this, I have just one question: How many American citizens have been detained in the manner described by Greenwald?

I believe the number so far is two -- Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan and subsequently released and flown to Saudi Arabia.

For comparison purposes: the Adams Administration jailed about 100 American citizens under the Alien and Sedition Acts; the Lincoln Administration jailed over 15,000 when it suspended the writ of habeas corpus; the Wilson and Harding Administrations jailed somewhere between 1,000-2,000 in the Palmer raids; and the Roosevelt Administration incarcerated over 100,000 Americans when it put Japanese Americans in detention camps.

Some historical perspective would be nice.

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 11:44 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (436)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

He forgot the part where citizens are totally ignored and illegal aliens are allowed, perhaps even encouraged, to enter the country and use the resources belonging to those citizens.

#1 DADvocate (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 12:51 (Reply)

I don't believe the U.S. Constitution was meant to apply to terrorist captured on the battlefield. What do these people use for brains?

#2 HSD (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 12:52 (Reply)

Man, come on. Sullivan doesn't do prespective, he emotes. Any hope of a sense of balance from Mr. Sullivan is based in the same fantansy as his claim to be a gay conservative. It's all a drug dream.

#3 Kevin P Menard (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 13:13 (Reply)

I'm sure both Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald know those basic facts.

But they seem to think that returning to the good old days of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Civil War, or the Palmer raids is a bad idea.

I tend to agree, regardless of who or which party occupies the White House. Even baby steps down that path are a bad idea.

#4 Nobody on 2006-05-28 13:13 (Reply)

The point isn't that we don't watch this stuff carefully, the point is that in each previous instance, civil liberties came back stronger than ever.

But Greenwald claim takes what is happening completely out of all historical context.

I find that troubling, and yes, more than a little irresponsible.

#4.1 Tom on 2006-05-28 13:26 (Reply)

And we should trust this evil government that is about to start putting gays in detention camps with our healthcare and retirement why?

#5 mrsizer (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 13:24 (Reply)

Because they... aren't? Just making things up doesn't constitute an argument.

#5.1 Jeremy Bowers (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 17:28 (Reply)

Of course, you don't actually know that it's two; none of us knows how many it is, and we can't find out. If it was President Clinton instead of President Bush, you'd be worried about that yourself. Perhaps I'll check back in 2009 just to confirm that.

#6 Ted on 2006-05-28 13:36 (Reply)

We don't know that the only American citizens detained in this manner are Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi?

Please show me evidence that this is more than just mere speculationon your part.

#6.1 Tom on 2006-05-28 13:43 (Reply)

It's touching, your child-like faith in the competence and tight lipped silence of the executive branch. In the real world, we've got major segments of the permanent bureaucracy, what I like to call the mandarinate, who are actively undermining the present administration. It's absurd to think that we could pull off secret snatches and keep our mouths shut. Even if the secret snatches are an order of magnitude greater than the two have gotten out, we're 1/5th the level of Adams. Two orders of magnitude puts us, at wartime, at twice the level of the Adams administration and that's just stretching things past all reasonable limit.

We are not at serious risk at this time and fevered imaginings are going to make it easier for future administrations to pooh pooh critics when they really go overboard. Thanks a lot, really.

#6.2 TM Lutas (Homepage) on 2006-05-29 10:11 (Reply)

Mr Sizer
One of the fine things about this country,is that allows anyone,even Liberal Arts majors,to spout nonsense at any juncture.Nevertheless,a fine tradition,which I'm establishing now mandates that on Memorial Day,all such rants must have at least a tangential relationship to reality.Proof? Evidence?It's OK,you can go back to your idiocies on Tuesday.It's Roswell,I believe.
Corwin
Oh,and mr. S.I don't know whether you've ever read any of Ray Bradbury's work.But in "Something Wicked This Way Comes",the hero's father muses after Mr.Dark calls him evil:"I never thought of it,but I suppose to an evil being,good is evil."
PPS.I'm not sure it's Roswell Day.It might be a review of Jewish Bankers

#7 corwin on 2006-05-28 13:41 (Reply)

This isn't even that unusual in recent history, take the case of Kevin Mitnick :
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick) :

"
He was arrested by the FBI on February 15, 1995. Mitnick was convicted of wire fraud and of breaking into the computer systems of Fujitsu, Motorola, Nokia, and Sun Microsystems. He served five years in prison (four years of it pre-trial), 8 months of that in solitary confinement, and was released on January 21, 2000.
"

Note that part there where they say he was kept in prison for four years before he was given a trial.

=darwin

#8 Darwin (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 14:20 (Reply)

...so Kevin Mitnick was arrested under Clinton, held under Clinton, and released under Clinton... and this has what exactly to do with the Bush Administration?

Oh yeah: Bush is Hitler. How could I have forgotten?

#9 DaveP. on 2006-05-28 14:37 (Reply)

DaveP. : That was exactly my point.

Hopefully you didn't think I was trying to make the opposite point...

=darwin

#9.1 Darwin (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 16:01 (Reply)

Of course Mitnik was held 4 yrs pre-trail...with access to counsel, etc. What is the problem with that? Why use this case to justify anything but a normal legal system (okay, that takes yrs to complete complex cases)?

#9.1.1 Harry on 2006-05-29 10:44 (Reply)

Harry, perhaps you're not familliar with the Mitnick case, but he was held WITHOUT BEING CHARGED for those four years. It's great and all to have access to counsel, but your counsel isn't going to do much if the government refuses to charge you.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am6
"
Amendment VI - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
"

Holding someone for years without charge seems to me to be a violation. My only point is that the Feds have felt free to detain people for extended time periods without charge. I agree with the general point of the post that those who consider the current circumstances unprecedented are simply unaware of the ample precedent.

In case anyone else feels like misinterpreting this STATEMENT OF FACT as an ENDORSEMENT OF THE BEHAVIOR, I suggest that you look closely at what I've written. I am not endorsing this behavior on the part of the Feds, I am simply drawing attention to it. In fact, I find it reprehensible that American citizens can be detained for years without charge or trial.

=darwin

#9.1.1.1 darwin (Homepage) on 2006-05-29 14:42 (Reply)

You don't offer any support for your claim, darwin, that Kevin Mitnick was held for four years (or even four minutes) without being charged. I see no such assertion in the Wikipedia article you cite and rely upon for your claim.

#9.1.1.1.1 michael i on 2006-05-30 04:36 (Reply)

so by "historical perspective" you mean, evidence of other wrong-doing as justification for your own?

isn't that like a child who gets busted stealing cookies pointing to his brother and saying, "but he does it too!"

uh, listen, kid. that doesn't justify what you just did and you will be punished.

that's not historical perspective. it's called a red herring.

and, so you only know of two examples of this wrong doing. soooo....that's not to shabby you think?

ok sure. and i only fooled around on my spouse two times. i'm sure that wouldn't be considered too bad. and if i only kill two people, can i get a pass too, like bush?

#10 ad on 2006-05-28 17:44 (Reply)

The point is, during a war, you sometimes have to do things like this, and in pretty much every previous war, it has been done on a far wider scale. Yet lefties and whatever the heck Andrew Sullivan is these days seem to single out Bush as "evil" for doing things that most other war time presidents have done.

#10.1 JeremyR on 2006-05-28 18:38 (Reply)

#1--We are a nation of laws. Where do you find this exception you claim that makes these actions legal during times of war? It seems to me this is just the sort of attitude that the chicken little guy below seems to be implying liberals of having. Wartime doesn't change our constitution or any of our laws of due process. And well it shouldn't. Don't forget, we are talking about American citizens.

#2--There you go again with that "in previous wars" shtick. Again, that is patently IRRELEVANT and what is known, in the wonderful world of logic, as a red herring.

#3--Did someone here (or in the referenced article) call Bush "evil"? I missed it. I thought we were just saying the action is illegal.

#10.1.1 ad on 2006-05-29 00:49 (Reply)

The Alien and Sedition Acts did not occur during a war. Neither did the Palmer raids.

As for why Bush gets singled out: It's because he's president now. No one's going to march on Washington to protest the Palmer raids tomorrow, even though they're obviously worse than anything Bush has done.

#10.1.2 Jesse on 2006-05-31 11:25 (Reply)

My goodness, talk about the use of red herrings!

Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi were hardly people who were hauled out of their homes in the middle of the night.

I believe Padilla had been under surveillance by virtue of the fact,among other things, that he had trained with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and was arrested while boarding a plane under suspicious circumstances.

Yaser Esam Hamdi was caught on a battlefield in Afghanistan.

The notion that innocent people are being arrested and held incommunicado without legal rights, as Greenwald suggests, is just not happening.

#10.2 Tom on 2006-05-28 18:47 (Reply)

some historical perspective would be nice? dollface, some knowledge of the Constitution would be nice.

what is the relevanve of anything that you just said? what you're telling me is that, had Padilla been hauled out of his home in the middle of the night, then and only then would you see a due process problem here? how about if he'd been hauled out of his home, say, in the middle of the DAY? just curious.

see, see i'm sure you've heard of this concept of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. no? so, in fact, innocent people were held incommunicado without due process.

i reckon you think those arrested around this country every day need not be taken before a judge or given the opportunity to obtain representation or to prove their innocence in a speedy trial. Because hell, THOSE people are all guilty! Because hell, the guv'mint don't arrest INNOCENT people, right?
it's so lucky, because then we don't have to bother with all those pesky due process requirements.

#10.2.1 ad on 2006-05-29 01:03 (Reply)

The difference is that Padilla and Hamdi weren't accused of commmitting criminal acts, they were accused of actively making war against the US.

Big difference. And there is legal precedent for this very sort of thing.

Or do you believe prisoners of war or enemy combatants deserve a hearing or a trial before they are detained?

#10.2.1.1 Tom on 2006-05-29 01:35 (Reply)

so what you are telling me is that the internment of japanese during WWII was legal and appropriate? actually, forget the question. that is precisely what you are saying, what is justified by your arguments.

no, not BEFORE, but they should be entitled to a hearing within a reasonable time after.

and, per the guy below, i'm hysterical because i think this is a dangerous precedent? well, now, come on, who is being hysterical? honestly, what legitimate reason is there not to have provided padilla access to representation and a detention hearing? this is not a war being fought on our territory. we are not overrun with enemy combatants on our shores such that we can't provide due process to detainees without putting our war efforts at great risk.

#10.2.1.1.1 ad on 2006-05-29 09:50 (Reply)

No that's not what I'm saying. That's what you say I'm saying.

The difference between over 100,000 Japanese Americans being detained and two people allied with al Qaeda couldn't be more vast.

Of course, recognizing that distiction wouldn't help your overblown rhetoric.

#10.2.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-05-29 14:06 (Reply)

ok then we're back where we started.

you imply the difference is in the numbers, between 100,000 and 2. but that is only a difference as to degree, not as to the substance of the thing.

it is no answer to say, "i'm fucking around on you alot less than i used to, honey!" do you actually think your wife should see this as progress?

call me hysterical if you want, but gee, if we can get it down to 2, i'm pretty sure we can get it down to zero.

and how about addressing the last part of my previous post? what legitimate rationale is there for denying these men their due process rights. explain not what may "conceptually" be permitted under the consitution but what is really necessary under the present circumstances of the official conflict. what problems would have been caused, what danger risked, by providing these men due process?

#10.2.1.1.1.1.1 ad on 2006-05-30 00:17 (Reply)

Here are my responses:

One, the reason I think the number of those detained is pertinent, is that it spells the difference between an event or events, and a trend. This does not constitute a trend (it is important to note that both of these men were arrested in the aftermath of 9/11, none since).

Two, likening this to cheating on one's wife is not an apt metaphor. Unlike a betrayed spouse, these people were active participants in the circumstances surrounding their arrests.

Three, you ask: what legitimate rationale is there for denying these men their due process rights?

I suppose one could ask the same question in the case of the capture of a foreign soldier during war time.

Why would there be any difference in war time between the capture of a foreign soldier or a foreign combatant?

#10.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-05-30 10:02 (Reply)

are you tom elia or a different tom? just curious.

#1--well, once again, we can argue about how many instances would constitute a trend. if you cheated on your wife on two different occassions, i suspect she would see that as a trend. but i'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say that it is not a trend. but again, i don't see the relevance of that point. if it's unjustified, it's unjustified, whether it is a trend or not. one instance of an affair is wrong, and while a wife may choose not to leave her husband, the parties would be unwise not to acknowledge the seriousness of the event and attempt to insure that it doesn't happen again. those who insist upon diminishing the seriousness of their wrong-doing will almost certainly do it again.

#2--well, i guess i get your point. however, MY point was not to analogize padilla with a betrayed spouse, but the government with the cheater. at any rate, you are making assumptions about the guilt of these men, which again is in violation of the basic tenet of our justice system.

#3--way to avoid the question! you answered the question with more questions. i would appreciate your answering them. but in answer to yours, i would say that non-citizens are not protected under the constitution.

finally, i expect at any moment this thread will die out, so let me take the opportunity to say that i have enjoyed talking to you, even though i do think you're dead wrong.

#10.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 ad on 2006-05-30 16:30 (Reply)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but for some reason the e-mail alerts for new comments stopped coming.

To answer your first question, I am the Tom Elia who wrote the original post.

I think we've pretty well established to one another that we disagree, but it was a pleasure to 'talk' to you.

Come back again and we can disagree some more!

Tom

#10.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-06-01 18:06 (Reply)

Yes,being caught on the battlefield is exactly like being yanked out of bed by the jackbooted gub'ment. Exactly like it. I'm not hysterical, not at all.

The UN is plotting a New World Order and their first step is jailing Americans who turn enemy combatants.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE! Everything is a slippery slope. Apples are exactly like oranges! There is no such thing as degree or discretion. The sheeple have no ablility to differentiate! We're all going to die!

#10.2.1.2 help on 2006-05-29 01:49 (Reply)

Greenwald's ahistorical, softskulled hysteria is ever so appropriate on Memorial Day weekend. He couldn't make up something else to shriek about?

#11 whyohwhy on 2006-05-28 19:21 (Reply)

On the one hand, we're not supposed to hold these people. On the other, we're not supposed to send them home, because they'll be tortured there.

I guess Greenwald would like to see them welcomed as new citizens and released.

#12 AST on 2006-05-28 19:45 (Reply)

You people have no idea what I have to put up with.

Cheers.

#13 Sullivan's Beagle on 2006-05-28 20:13 (Reply)

The number is irrelevant. The fact that it is happening, and the implicit assumption that it can be done is what is problematic.

Is your supplementary "historical context" an argument in favor of the illegal detention of American citizens and of perfectly lawless government?

#14 sheesh on 2006-05-28 20:39 (Reply)

The idea that because it could happen to one, or a few, that it could happen to anyone has great emotional power for us because of the movies and inspirational speeches we have heard all our lives. The link between the few and the many is considered a classic slippery-slope argument. It has the weak point of being untrue, however.

I think it could all be framed otherwise. We use edgy or questionable tactics only in the direst need. The small number is actually pretty good evidence of that. The idea that we will be taking baby steps to tyranny doesn't actually prove out in American history, as noted above.

It sounds cool and noble to believe that we're descending into fascism and this is evidence, but it's actually not so, never been so, shows no signs of becoming so. It's middle-school reasoning. In real life these sort of err-on-the-side-of-public-safety circumstances happen all the time. The police are trained to refrain from shooting, but sometimes they have to shoot.

#14.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Homepage) on 2006-05-28 20:56 (Reply)

How is it "illegal" if all branches of government signed off on it? "We the People" run this government and "We the People" through our elected officials and judiciary said locking up traitors caught on the battlefield is A-OK with us. Don't like it? Move to a dictatorship where you can force your minority view on the people.

#14.2 logic a calling on 2006-05-28 21:05 (Reply)

i'm sorry. could you cite me to this document wherein Congress and the judiciary "signed off on" either the Padilla and Hamdi cases or the rule in general that the government need not meet the constitutional requirements of due process when american citizens who are accused of being enemy combatants are arrested?

#14.2.1 ad on 2006-05-29 01:11 (Reply)

#14.2.1.1 help on 2006-05-29 01:44 (Reply)

You forgot all the Germans and Italians incarcerated on the East Coast during WWII.

#15 Matt on 2006-05-28 20:55 (Reply)

"Of course, you don't actually know that it's two; none of us knows how many it is, and we can't find out. If it was President Clinton instead of President Bush, you'd be worried about that yourself."

By that standard of proof, we also don't know that Clinton didn't do it.

#16 dwpittelli on 2006-05-28 21:23 (Reply)

Clearly after Lincoln, we became a fascist government. No? Then clearly Wilson's presidency gave all the evidence we needed of the coming fascist government. No? Then clearly Roosevelt ushed in the death of the Republic with jackbooted thugs and the beginning of unending fascism. No? But clearly Bush will usher in fascism, because America is going to do the completely ahistorical, unprecidented turn toward fascism, despite no historical evidence of such. Why?

Because he is BUSH, with more persuasive might than all past presidents combined! He is the UBER-PRESIDENT, capable of changing the very nature of people's souls! You will abandon democracy in the face of Bush's unstoppable charisma.

#17 chicken little on 2006-05-28 21:24 (Reply)

Was someone arguing that America is now on an irreversible road to fascism?

Whoever it was, his name isn't Glenn Greenwald. Or Andrew Sullivan.

#17.1 Jesse on 2006-05-31 11:32 (Reply)

The difference between the imprisonment of Padilla and Hamdi, and widespread or arbitrary imprisonment, isn't just in number. (If it were, I would concede that we would have a potent slippery slope problem.) The key difference is that Padilla and Hamdi were captured in accordance with the standards of ex parte Quirin (1942), in which SCOTUS found that even US citizens can be treated as illegal combatants (or saboteurs or spies) if caught either overseas or soon upon arrival in the US. The only thing historically or legally unusual about US treatment of Padilla and Hamdi is that they were not executed.

While we would not wish the Bush Administration to start arresting masses of people at US airports, there is no real slippery slope problem with the Quirin standard because an Administration cannot impose a reign of terror when imprisoning only people arriving from overseas.

#18 dwpittelli on 2006-05-28 21:30 (Reply)

And how does this historical perspective make todays behavior correct? Slave ownership was accepted behavior among our founding fathers, it is however, no longer acceptable. Surely we've advanced however so slightly.

#19 Smedley on 2006-05-28 21:30 (Reply)

And the US got rid of slavery. But they will surely never get rid of Bush's coming fascism, because he is the most persuasive president ever!

And a people with the wisdom to get rid of slavery could never have the wisdom to avoid fascism. Never!

Liberals who fancy themselves the elite have nothing but contempt for their fellow citizens, despite all historical record.

#19.1 chicken little on 2006-05-29 00:04 (Reply)

Historical perspective?

James Joyce said through his character Steven Dedalus in Ulysses, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". Surely anyone who understands the Bush administration power grab under the secret cloak of "security" has got to feel a sense of HORROR. Bush is in it to save his guilty ass.

#20 John Williams on 2006-05-28 23:03 (Reply)

How is it a power grab if past presidents have already grabbed it?

Did you even bother reading the post or do you just like masterbating in comment threads?

#20.1 duh on 2006-05-28 23:59 (Reply)

So we don't have to worry about power grabs because in the past the power has been relinquished, AND this isn't a power grab because the power has already been grabbed?

You can argue one or the other, but not both.

#20.1.1 Jesse on 2006-05-31 11:28 (Reply)

Yes, well, please do get back to me about the Bush administration's "power grab", and the "road to tyranny", and so forth and so on. . .

. . .just as soon as the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 has been relegislated to cover MALE victims as well.

Since we still sexually mutilate over A MILLION little boys in the country annually.

Not that I think ACTUAL GENDER-DISCRIMINATORY MUTILATING CHILD ABUSE ON A MASSIVE 7-FIGURE SCALE is at all, you know, comparable, to the merely potential "slippery slope" about which you're ever-so-worried.

How's that for "perspective"?

#21 Acksiom (Homepage) on 2006-05-29 02:07 (Reply)

The irony of posting on the web about creeping fascism is so lost on these people.

#22 Bandit on 2006-05-31 07:50 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Sunday, May 28. 2006

"People Who Don't Understand How America Works"

Stephan Challenge

Search

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Sunday, May 28. 2006

"People Who Don't Understand How America Works"

Stephan Challenge

Search

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites