American Politics: the Lost Generation

[awesome possum]

I don't get the politics of this, Annelise. My understanding is that right now, there is no federal funding of abortions. If this bill dies, there still will be no federal funding of abortion. Why in the world would the other Dems let this bill if adding his language would enable passage of the bill? With Stupak's language, the status quo on abortion is maintained, but you get all the other benefits of the bill. To me, it makes no sense to let the bill die over that one issue.

From what I understand (could be wrong), it's because the bill doesn't contain harsh enough language on abortion. It's not enough for it to say, "abortions shall not be federally funded." I guess Stupak and his ilk would prefer it to say, "abortions shall not be federally funded and you're a hell-bound whore for even thinking about it."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So they can speak with a Lawyer and then you can keep talking with them, not sure what the issue is here.

Because once they ask for their lawyer, you're not permitted to talk to them without their lawyer present, and you can't ask them anything even with their lawyer present if they say they don't want to be asked questions. You can ask POW's questions all day if you want.

Are you stating that terrorists are now POWs, I thought you were arguing for something else? Then why not follow the rules for that?

I'm not saying to treat them as POW's. I'm saying that the considerations that lead us to different treatment for POW's than civilians should impact how we treat terrorists as well. To demonstrate what I mean, ask yourself why we hold onto POW's without lawyers, without 5th amendment rights, etc., if they haven't committed a crime.

How do we handle foreign nationals who break our laws while in our country?

Generally, with the criminal code, unless they are committing war-related acts.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I notice you use alot of words like "credible", "clear" and "likely." Credible by whose standards? Clear to whom? How unlikely? And how does anyone know "the perceived time limits"? Those criteria are broad enough to permit waterboarding at pretty much any time, IMO.

Those aren't my words, Neil. Those were the actual words from the memo. And I understand your point, but our legal system deals with similarly amorphous terms such as "reasonable" all the time. Our military has to consider terms like "reasonable", "proportionate", "unduly" all the time in deciding whether deadly force is appropriate. It is the nature of reality that bright-line definitions don't always work.

Those words are necessary because you cannot predict with precision ever possible situation you will encounter. And again, I think you are ignoring that only 3 people were waterboarded. You are blasting how those words might have been interpreted rather than how they actually were.

You have this idea that each act of torture was individually OK'ed by the secretary of state or the president, when I don't believe that was the case, and in any case that is not the way organizations work.

You might be surprised. There was a specific memo of justification containing specific approvals for each of the three individuals who were waterboarded. Joe interrogator did not have the authority to make that decision on his own. Seriously, you ought to read some of those memos. Not for the legal reasoning, but at least to understand that this wasn't something that was undertaken casually, which seesm to be your belief.

When the folks at the top give the green light on torture in general, the folks at the bottom are going to use their own judgment regarding when to torture.

That is factually false, Neil. There was no blanket green light given on waterboarding.

Surprisingly, I think you are dead-on here. Just as most Americans don't care if the Senate passes a bill through reconciliation, neither are they concerned with the way the House passes a bill. Either you voted for health insurance reform or you didn't, and voting "yes" in 2009 and "no" in 2010 is not going to protect you from those who don't want reform. That being said, however, if it gets the bill through the House I am all for it. I'm not willing to sacrifice an ultimately good result because of bad procedure.

Perhaps equally surprisingly, I have no legal objection to that procedure either. I think its weird and weaselly, but I don't think its unlawful.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Provided, of course, that the conflict in question isn't a "War on Terror" and has a definite and identifiable end--otherwise it becomes permanent detainment with no hope of appeal.

Just like any other war, when Mullah Omar orders the Taliban to lay down their arms, they should be released or tried. Or when OBL or whomever is heading up AQ says the conflict is over, those folks should be released or tried as well.

Presumably this means that any unlawful combatants taken in Iraq will be released when combat troops pull out of the country (and possibly should have been released when the US and Iraq ceased hostilities)

.

Well, I don't think there are many of those Iraqi types in Gitmo to begin with, but yes, I generally agree with that. Of course, members of AQ seized in Iraq or elsewhere whose organization continues to make war on the U.S. can be held until AQ runs up the white flag or signs a treaty. It's our right to hold them that long, although I wouldn't object to case-by-case determinations that we can let some of those folks go if we deem them no longer a risk despite AQ still trying to kill us.

All that said, I still believe each person should get a hearing in front of a tribunal as a bare minimum before they are locked up for the duration of the hostilities. I also have no problem with civilians who shoot soldiers being accused of murder and tried in a court.

Here's the problem. When the police seize someone in this country, you have a swarm of law enforcement, you book them, lock them up, take down all the statements, have evidence rooms, etc. Troops who capture opponents on the battlefield cannot do that as a practical matter. Even if they could, you could not have soldiers being flown back to the states as witnesses in those cases. It is impossible. The system you want to set up would effectively mean we couldn't hold any unlawful combatants.

They (or at least I) believe you are setting up a system that is ripe for abuse. For instance, who makes the determination that there is "no doubt" of a persons guilt and why do we trust that person to be infallible?

Becuase the circumstances under which they are seized and the information used often won't fit within the confines of a civilian legal system.

Doesn't it make more sense to let the tribunal make that call since that's what they are assessing anyway? What is to prevent someone from being to liberal with the "no doubt" rule and denying tribunals to people for whom there is legitimate doubt?

Oh, I think they should continue to hold people if there is a "legitimate doubt".

You've also based a great deal of your argument on the "laws of war" and how the unlawful combatants have not respected them, but now seem willing wave aside "black and white" "technical" law because it is inconvenient.

No. I'm trying to apply normal military law to both situations. You are trying to argue that civilian law should govern military detentions.

This is a big strawman. No one is calling for lawyers or due process on a battlefield. Everything I've said has been about what happens after someone is taken into custody. But so long as you have a tribunal to decide when there is reasonable doubt and a tribunal is required, your conclusion seems reasonable.

Okay, here are the questions -- what is the form of those tribunals? What rules of evidence are required, what is the burden of proof, is there just a judge or a jury? Is it civilian or military? Because I have to say that the military has no reason to waste its time holding people they think are harmless.

For something as big as indefinite detention I don't think that the judgement of the people in charge is sufficient. To make a determination about short term detention until a hearing can be arrange? Sure, but no more than that. In a theoretical country where the citizens had very few rights, would you be comfortable with the police deciding who got a trial and who was sent directly to prison? You wouldn't see the possibility of abuse in such a system?

Yes. But that's not war, is it?

I repeat my assertion that systemic wrongs are far scarier than individual wrongs or wrongs committed by illegal organisations.

In general, I agree with the part about individual wrongs, but not that of illegal organizations.

While I think you might be being facetious, I do want to reiterate that this final point has always been about people taken into custody outside warzones and suspected of crimes such as terrorism. Removing criminals to GITMO or Syria so you can torture them or deny them due process isn't right, and begs to be abused.

Gotta go but I will respond to this later.

[Guy Kilmore]

Because once they ask for their lawyer, you're not permitted to talk to them without their lawyer present, and you can't ask them anything even with their lawyer present if they say they don't want to be asked questions. You can ask POW's questions all day if you want.

Small distinction, but you can ask them questions, but they have the right and ability to refuse to answer them. I guess, I am not seeing how Holder's statement says in WSJ says he endorses toture or not using the criminal justice system to question those that are accused of committing acts of terrorism. I mean, you can make an arguement that it is not an effective way of doing it, but one can still make a statement that it is important/imperative that we question those assests and believe the criminal justice system is not the propper way of doing it.

I'm not saying to treat them as POW's. I'm saying that the considerations that lead us to different treatment for POW's than civilians should impact how we treat terrorists as well. To demonstrate what I mean, ask yourself why we hold onto POW's without lawyers, without 5th amendment rights, etc., if they haven't committed a crime.

I have no problem with the POW designation. It just seemed in your last comparison you basically asked me to compare and contrast POWs vs. criminals. That seemed an odd thing of you to ask of me as from what I understand you don't see a terrorist as a POW.

Generally, with the criminal code, unless they are committing war-related acts.

So we would deal with a foreign national differently if they stole a bunch of trucks for personal gain, vs. one who did so to supply guerrilla soldiers who wish to destroy the US?

[Annelise]

Well, I can't say that I've read the entirety of the old or new books. But I will say this -- based on some of the other textbooks I've seen, I'd rather have the new one than the old one. Not that the new one will be perfect, but I think some of the other ones in common use are seriously biased.

Hm.. you don't need to have read the entirety of either set of books to say whether or not you support advancing a religious agenda in public schools. (I don't, if you were wondering. :)) This was the crux of the criticism last year re: the ID amendments and (I believe) again this year, with the changes to social studies. Whether the criticism had/has merit is a separate question from whether or not you dis/agree with the beliefs it stems from.

I don't get the politics of this, Annelise.

I don't either. I haven't even tried, because I don't give a crap. If it would win more votes to strengthen the language, do it. If it would lose more votes than it would gain, then don't. My understanding is it's the latter. It aggravates me that its this big a thorn wrt HCR, but that's freaking abortion for you.

[Annelise]

On that topic, TPM reports:

At the end of the sometimes-contentious interview, Baier apologized for his interrupting, but added that Fox News was just "trying to get the most for our buck here."

In other news, apparently Kucinich is a yea instead of a nay, now. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/kucinich-to-vote-yes-on-health-care-reform--heres-why.php?ref=mp

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I guess, I am not seeing how Holder's statement says in WSJ says he endorses toture or not using the criminal justice system to question those that are accused of committing acts of terrorism. I mean, you can make an arguement that it is not an effective way of doing it

Holder's point, if you read his statement in context, says that we should question these people at least as much as we question POW's, at a minimum. It's pretty clear he thinks they should have less rights in this regard than POW's. Treating them as simple criminals gives them greater rights than POW's, not the least of which is the right to counsel.

So we would deal with a foreign national differently if they stole a bunch of trucks for personal gain, vs. one who did so to supply guerrilla soldiers who wish to destroy the US?

No. There's too many weird variables in there so I'll make the example more clear. Yes, we should treat foreign nationals who kill U.S. citizens as part of an international political/military movement differently from a foreign national who kills someone while robbing a convenience store. The latter is analogous to crimes committed by U.S. citizens themselves that the legal system is perfectly capable of handling. The former involves diplomatic, intelligence, and military considerations that may make civilian resolution impractical, in the same sense that we don't treat regular POW's as just "suspected" criminals, or try regular war criminals in normal civilian courts. And why, incidentally, we have always processed foreign national spies through a military rather than civilian system.

The "gray" areas and exigencies of overseas operations don't lend themselves to the type of clean proof we properly require in our civilian courts.

[Guy Kilmore]

Holder's point, if you read his statement in context, says that we should question these people at least as much as we question POW's, at a minimum. It's pretty clear he thinks they should have less rights in this regard than POW's. Treating them as simple criminals gives them greater rights than POW's, not the least of which is the right to counsel.

Here is where I disagree. If one looks at the very recent report from NPR, you will find that he does feel the criminal justice system is able to adequately handle terrorists. So I guess, I disagree with the statement "in context" because when one looks at a more recent and more in-depth analysis of his stance this is not the case.

In regards to your other statement, is the criminal justice system able to adequately handle domestic terrorist groups? Why is our approach different with those groups than with foreign groups?

[Angalin]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: thread length