America's continuing embrace of authoritarianism

[Phokus]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?...U1ZGY5Y2NiY2EyOWIyY2Q2ZWUyNmJlZmQ2NzE=

Romney on Enemy Combatants

Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

If you believe in freedom, the answer to this simple question is: HELL NO.

It's a complete joke that we still call America 'the land of the free'. Lets face the facts: The terrorists DID win.

 

[Kadarin]

Without openness, accountability, and oversight, you have tyranny waiting to happen.

 

[Fern]

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

Well, I think I understand your point. But I don't wanna jump to conclusions.

That sentance is too vague, what is he geting at? Loss of habeus corpus? If so, why not say so.

H3ll, the police arrest people without review. But then there's a whole slew of due process that follows.

Is he saying no bail, no trial etc?

Too vague for me?

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fern

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

Well, I think I understand your point. But I don't wanna jump to conclusions.

That sentance is too vague, what is he geting at? Loss of habeus corpus? If so, why not say so.

H3ll, the police arrest people without review. But then there's a whole slew of due process that follows.

Is he saying no bail, no trial etc?

Too vague for me?

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

I think it's fairly straightforward based on current events : can you hold a US citizen without a trial (for example)?

edit: what the hell are you talking about with your edit?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

Well, I think I understand your point. But I don't wanna jump to conclusions.

That sentance is too vague, what is he geting at? Loss of habeus corpus? If so, why not say so.

H3ll, the police arrest people without review. But then there's a whole slew of due process that follows.

Is he saying no bail, no trial etc?

Too vague for me?

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

I think it's fairly straightforward based on current events : can you hold a US citizen without a trial (for example)?

edit: what the hell are you talking about with your edit?

you my friend have no insight to that question that was asked...it is by no means straight forward..unless you are a simpleton..

 

[Lemon law]

you my friend have no insight to that question that was asked...it is by no means straight forward..unless you are a simpleton..sez JEDIYoda.

Its actually very simple if you believe in our constitution. It only gets complex when you try to fool your self into thinking you believe in the constitution and take the alternate view.
In religious terms---you can go with GOD or go to the devil.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Is it really surprising that the Party of Bush has no respect for the Constitution?

Edit: I take that back. The old GOP does respect the Constitution. It's the new turds that have corrupted the GOP.

 

[Rainsford]

I think you folks on the right need to bone up on your legal smarts (I suggest you start with the constitution). Having the power to arrest someone without review means the President can order a US citizen arrested and detained and that arrest and detention will never be reviewed by any court. In other words, that the executive branch ALONE makes the decision. Since that's pretty explicitly forbidden in our legal system, I invite you jokers to cram your Orwellian BS with walnuts.

 

[ProfJohn]

What does he mean when he says "no review"?

No trial? No hearing? Just arrest someone and lock them up for the hell of it?
I highly doubt anyone running for President would agree to that.
I'd like more context on what they are all agreeing too, and I am sure we will get that during the debates.

BTW Phokus, what are you doing on National Review? I thought you were a crazy lib?
Just following a link from another site?

 

[rickn]

america, land of the freeper, home of the paranoid

 

[ProfJohn]

Another National Review comment that sheads more light on this debate

Ramesh, I don't blame Romney for taking that position if that is how the question was worded. To ask whether "the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review" is confusing. Presidents do not have such authority. During times of armed conflict, they have authority to arrest and detain American citizens who are enemy combatants with no trial, but not with no review.

The Justice Department conceded in connection with the Supreme Court's 2004 Hamdi case (involving an American citizen enemy combatant) that U.S. persons (a category broader than U.S. citizens) are entitled to challenge their detention by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed that this was the case. What principally divided the Court, and divides scholars, is not whether there is review but what that review should entail.

On that, opinion seems to range from (a) the purist Scalia/Stevens position that, absent a suspension of the writ by Congress, an arrested American is entitled to an indictment and trial in the civilian courts if they are open and functioning; to (b) a majority falling in the middle, holding that Americans alleged to be enemy combatants are not entitled to a full-blow trial but, rather, to a meaningful opportunity to challenge the president's determination of their status ? with the caveat that such a proceeding must be deferential to the executive branch in wartime; to (c) the Thomas position that the president's determination that a person ? even an American ? is an enemy combatant is essentially unreviewable by the courts. (If Thomas's position were the law, the question put to Romney would be of greater moment. But the remaining eight justices rejected this interpretation.)

Guided by Hamdi, the military is now giving each enemy combatant a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Although almost all the detainees are non-Americans, I believe the administration and Congress have assumed that a CSRT satisfies (b), above. Whether that is the case is very likely to be decided by the DC Circuit and, ultimately, by the Supreme Court in the next year or so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice rhetorical trick, ProfJohn. The National Review represents their position as centrist, when they're far from it, just because they have an outright fascist point of view available from Thomas... Which is the beauty of rightwing rhetoric in general- they can always compare themselves favorably to the Nazis, even when the functional difference is rather small.

How quickly the right drops their song and dance about "strict interpretation of the Constitution" when it comes to this issue, which shouldn't be an issue at all. The language of the Constitution is crystal clear in this respect. The WoT is no more a real war than the WoD, or the War on Porn, so quit pretending that it is.

You merely validate Phokus' original claim that yes, yes indeed, a certain % of Americans are willing to embrace Authoritarianism, discarding the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence just so they can feel safe from the terrorist boogeyman...

Ooga-Booga! Better check the supply of duct tape and plastic sheeting...

 

[piasabird]

This type of question is a Straw Man Argument. It forces the person who is asked to aggree on the premise it poses. It is never asked to get a truthful answer but to get information that can be used against someone. Be careful how you take these kind of questions. Any skilled logical thinker or even the worst salesman can understand such a question.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

-snip-

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

I think it's fairly straightforward based on current events : can you hold a US citizen without a trial (for example)?

edit: what the hell are you talking about with your edit?

Here in North Carolina, I can go down to the County Courthouse and make a complaint against someone. Let's say I go down Friday and swear that Harvey assaulted me. The Sherrif's dept will go arrest him and put him in jail. (Since it's friday he'll likley have to spend the weekend in jail )

I don't need any witnesses etc. If Harvey tells the Deputies upon his arrest, that it was actually I who assaulted him (and he shows the deputeds his black eye), doesn't matter he gets arrested.

If we both get into a fight and try to report each other, the first one to the Courthouse wins. Once I complain against Harvey he no longer aloowed to file a complaint against me

There is no "review" of these arrests. Weird huh?

Fern

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

-snip-

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

I think it's fairly straightforward based on current events : can you hold a US citizen without a trial (for example)?

edit: what the hell are you talking about with your edit?

Here in North Carolina, I can go down to the County Courthouse and make a complaint against someone. Let's say I go down Friday and swear that Harvey assaulted me. The Sherrif's dept will go arrest him and put him in jail. (Since it's friday he'll likley have to spend the weekend in jail )

I don't need any witnesses etc. If Harvey tells the Deputies upon his arrest, that it was actually I who assaulted him (and he shows the deputeds his black eye), doesn't matter he gets arrested.

If we both get into a fight and try to report each other, the first one to the Courthouse wins. Once I complain against Harvey he no longer aloowed to file a complaint against me

There is no "review" of these arrests. Weird huh?

Fern

That's quite possibly the most retarded thing i've ever heard... may God have mercy on North Carolina.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Fern

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review

-snip-

EDIT: You do know that even I can have people arrested and there's no review? All I gotta do is go down to the Magistrate's office and swear a complaint. You get arrested, no reveiw.

Fern

I think it's fairly straightforward based on current events : can you hold a US citizen without a trial (for example)?

edit: what the hell are you talking about with your edit?

Here in North Carolina, I can go down to the County Courthouse and make a complaint against someone. Let's say I go down Friday and swear that Harvey assaulted me. The Sherrif's dept will go arrest him and put him in jail. (Since it's friday he'll likley have to spend the weekend in jail )

I don't need any witnesses etc. If Harvey tells the Deputies upon his arrest, that it was actually I who assaulted him (and he shows the deputeds his black eye), doesn't matter he gets arrested.

If we both get into a fight and try to report each other, the first one to the Courthouse wins. Once I complain against Harvey he no longer aloowed to file a complaint against me

There is no "review" of these arrests. Weird huh?

Fern

DOn't you have to "swear out a complaint", so giving false information would be perjury, wouldn't it?

EDIT: If the cop doesn't have a "sworn complaint" then wouldn't he be liable for false arrest???

 

[Lemon law]

There is a reason we have those provisions in the constitution---because anyone who was even asking disturbing questions or passing on news---was often snatched up by the British and tossed in jail---never charged with any crime---just detained indefinitely.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your example is disingenuous, Fern. Yeh, sure, what you say is true to a point, but the authorities still have to abide by the rules- bond, speedy trial, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence. It's not like they can lock the accused away indefinitely on your say so...

Well, unless he's accused of being a terrorist, and the Bush Admin is in office.

Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't allow exceptions for alleged terrorists- the rule of law is there to protect the rights of the accused in each and every circumstance, regardless of the allegations against him...

The sad truth is that the Bush Admin has abrogated the rule of law, time and time again, and will continue to do so as long as they're in office. They usurp the authority of the Constitution for themselves, and in doing so usurp the rights of the people.

Judging from Romney's and Giuliani's answers, they'd do the same, making them morally unfit to defend the Constitution, to serve as President.

 

[mc00]

I strongly believe in freedom but how thing are these day.. they want to throw you in prison like way keep you at bay.