What the Fuck.
Jul. 28th, 2008 08:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumI kept trying to find something more useful as a title to this. Some clever turn of phrase, or pithy aphorism to countepoise the content to follow and put it in perspective.
That was the best I could do when I read this chunk of editorial from the Washington Post:
...modern realities strongly argue against using the federal courts as the exclusive arena to hold or try all terrorism suspects. Most terrorism prosecutions, including the 1993 World Trade Center case, are brought after terrorists have struck. The first priority of a president must be to protect the country from attack. The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges.
As if that weren't enough: The protections afforded to defendants in federal court -- including the right against self-incrimination -- work against legitimate intelligence-gathering interests.
Who writes this stuff? Do they think about what they are saying? Detain those against whom a case can't be brought... because there isn't enough evidence.
To quote myself quoting Winston Churchill (that paragon the incipient fascists in our midst, the ones morons like the Editoral Staff at the WashPost are so fond of using to justify their brave support of the War in Iraq, and attacks on Iran; lest we be appeasers):
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
So, not enough evidence... have a secret court Traditional federal court proceedings also present security challenges. Although the most sensitive national security information could be shielded from public consumption through existing laws, the openness of federal court proceedings risks handing unclassified but valuable information to those who would harm this country... so we can't let the people see what we are doing, besides... recall that pesky litle problem of the Constitution not requiring people to incriminate themselves?
The separate trial scheme for detainees later charged with crimes should feature slightly more relaxed evidentiary standards than those that prevail in federal court, but there should be robust defenses. It is highly unlikely that national security detainees could be tried in conventional federal court, in part because they would not have been afforded some of the procedural rights guaranteed to conventional defendants, such as the right to remain silent.
Why do we need to have these more lax standards?
without a new trial regime under the auspices of a national security court, the government would have a perverse incentive to hold detainees indefinitely without charge.
Just in case you were worried those special courts (with the "relaxed" standards of evidence) might make mistakes, or hand out sentences to meet an agenda, never fear, " Trials under a national security court would also be heard by a panel of Senate-confirmed federal judges; trial matters could be appealed to a special appellate panel..
We've seen how good the Senate is at making sure the President doesn't get to pack courts with reactionary types.
I dom't even know what to say about the idea that the courts are part of the intelligence collection efforts (that whole self-incrimination works against collecting efforts). That's just bizzaro world.
When you remember a federal court has said the power of the president to "dissapear someone" extends to US citizens, and wonder just what the Washington Post is arguing for.
It can happen here. If we don't agitate against it, it will happen here.
Your, "Liberal" media at work.
That was the best I could do when I read this chunk of editorial from the Washington Post:
...modern realities strongly argue against using the federal courts as the exclusive arena to hold or try all terrorism suspects. Most terrorism prosecutions, including the 1993 World Trade Center case, are brought after terrorists have struck. The first priority of a president must be to protect the country from attack. The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges.
As if that weren't enough: The protections afforded to defendants in federal court -- including the right against self-incrimination -- work against legitimate intelligence-gathering interests.
Who writes this stuff? Do they think about what they are saying? Detain those against whom a case can't be brought... because there isn't enough evidence.
To quote myself quoting Winston Churchill (that paragon the incipient fascists in our midst, the ones morons like the Editoral Staff at the WashPost are so fond of using to justify their brave support of the War in Iraq, and attacks on Iran; lest we be appeasers):
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
So, not enough evidence... have a secret court Traditional federal court proceedings also present security challenges. Although the most sensitive national security information could be shielded from public consumption through existing laws, the openness of federal court proceedings risks handing unclassified but valuable information to those who would harm this country... so we can't let the people see what we are doing, besides... recall that pesky litle problem of the Constitution not requiring people to incriminate themselves?
The separate trial scheme for detainees later charged with crimes should feature slightly more relaxed evidentiary standards than those that prevail in federal court, but there should be robust defenses. It is highly unlikely that national security detainees could be tried in conventional federal court, in part because they would not have been afforded some of the procedural rights guaranteed to conventional defendants, such as the right to remain silent.
Why do we need to have these more lax standards?
without a new trial regime under the auspices of a national security court, the government would have a perverse incentive to hold detainees indefinitely without charge.
Just in case you were worried those special courts (with the "relaxed" standards of evidence) might make mistakes, or hand out sentences to meet an agenda, never fear, " Trials under a national security court would also be heard by a panel of Senate-confirmed federal judges; trial matters could be appealed to a special appellate panel..
We've seen how good the Senate is at making sure the President doesn't get to pack courts with reactionary types.
I dom't even know what to say about the idea that the courts are part of the intelligence collection efforts (that whole self-incrimination works against collecting efforts). That's just bizzaro world.
When you remember a federal court has said the power of the president to "dissapear someone" extends to US citizens, and wonder just what the Washington Post is arguing for.
It can happen here. If we don't agitate against it, it will happen here.
Your, "Liberal" media at work.
