posted on December 10, 2001 12:44:13 PM
Afghanistan has been reduced to rubble, Bin Ladin is still in hiding and are we any better off than when we started? Our Cilvl Liberties are being destroyed and information is being withheld from the press while the threat of terrorists attacks has increased. This war looks like a failure to me.
FDR said, "The work, my friend is peace. More than an end of this war---an end to the beginnings of all wars." But it looks like Bush has just begun his attack on the rest of the MidEast.
Countries next on the hit list include Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Libya and North Korea. According to this article, they can expect to receive ultimatums requiring them to get their acts together.
The question is raised, How will Bush justify and maintain support for these battles?
After we have bombed Afghanistan into oblivion, and accomplished nothing, do we just leave and let the Northern Alliance take over where the Taliban left off?
posted on December 10, 2001 01:03:55 PM
Terrorist-promoting countries that acquire weapons of mass destruction = bad. Things should've been looked at and dealt with long ago. Now the government is playing catch-up so everything looks all encompassing. There are 2 choices....we can go through "peace" talks with these countries and still get blown up in the end, or we can TRY to weed out the heads of these terrorist organizations and put a dent in terrorism. No matter what route is taken, we all still might get blown up.
As far as civil liberties, what has really been lost so far?
posted on December 10, 2001 02:55:22 PM
We're much safer than 3 months ago due to our activity in Afghanistan. In fact, due to our resolve to take military action, it very well may have caused several countries to crack down on their terrorist organizations.
I haven't seen any loss of civil liberties. If you're referring to the illegal aliens being rounded up, jailed, and deported, I know of no Constitutional language that addresses non-citizens. I hope they find all the illegals and deport them. If they wish to gain entry to our country legally, more power to them.
The people of Afghanistan are now receiving more food, better medical care, and more civil liberties. Many have stated that they gladly accept the destruction of a few buildgings to get rid of the Taliban terrorists.
All told to date, the military action in Afghanistan has been very successful for all involved except the Taliban and bin Laden.
I would speculate that the other terrorist harboring countries that may be targets will deliver up their terrorists rather than suffer the wrath of the U.S. Air Force. Iraq is even trying to open communications to the U.S. The Palestinians are now being forced to make a decision about supporting terrorists.
As long as terrorists can hide behind innocent people and govts can simply deny association with these groups while the groups are living in their country, there will be no end to terror.
But now the U.S. has shown there will be a price to pay for harboring terrorists.
We, and the civilized world, have gained much from our actions in Afghanistan, and there is still much more to be done.
Bush or any President has my support to rid the world of this scum.
posted on December 10, 2001 03:45:18 PM
"The race to get emergency food and clothes to millions of Afghans threatened with starvation before winter snows block the high passes is being hampered by lawless roadside gangs preying on goods traffic, aid agencies warned yesterday."
These people are freezing and starving to death. I don't think that anybody is better off and furthermore there is pressure for the US to "get out of there" and on to the next battle.
posted on December 10, 2001 06:00:37 PM
"...I know of no Constitutional language that addresses non-citizens"
Duh!!!
There is no Constitutional language that addresses non-citizens, and for a very good reason... the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.
Put more simply, Constitutional protections apply to <b>all</b>, not just citizens. This is a concept many people don't seem to understand.
posted on December 10, 2001 06:12:15 PM
There'll be no end of terrorism in the world until there is a one-world police state, if that should ever come into existence. Certainly the war in Afghanistan has inflicted some damage to bin Laden's network and the people couldn't be worse off than they have been Their lot will likely be improved, at least for a while, as we are willing to underwrite the costs of maintaining stability. The pipeline will be a prime incentive.
Whether or not much headway is made in dismantling the Al Qaida network remains to be seen. How widespread it is and how well-organized outside of Afghanistan is questionable. Apparently we can't even be certain of the degree of threat within our own country. But whether or not our alliance makes much progress is dependent upon its cohesiveness and determination which is already wavering about Iraq. Unless we can produce some solid evidence that Iraq is directly involved with bin Laden and terrorism, I don't think that we will attack. The administration is getting what it wants at home and, rhetoric aside, an imminent attack on Iraq would probably be more politically advantageous a little later.
Revenge aside also, the most pressing protections against terrorism need to be internal. This concerns me more, though, than the quixotic attempts to remove evil from all mankind throughout the world. The threat here is that the exceptions being made to privacy and due process would quite logically extend to citizens in the event that a strong enough case could be made with instances such as the McVeigh bombing and the recent anthrax incidents. There are a great number of incidents that we have been concerned with for some time, such as school and other public mass shootings, drive-by random shootings, the unibomber, etc. All of these would qualify as terrorist acts and constitute acts of war just as logically as those of foreign terrorists. The cause is irrelevant.
When any agency of government is allowed to operate in secrecy, without carefully improsed oversight and accountability, then abuse is almost inevitable, regardless of the faith that one may have in their good intentions. What's that old saying about the pathway to hell being paved with good intentions?
posted on December 10, 2001 08:39:33 PM
[i]"If you're referring to the illegal aliens being rounded up, jailed"[/]]
Someone might point out to reamond that completely legal immigrants have been rounded up and presumably jailed, not just illegal ones. I use presumably because there has been no disclosure of where most of them are held--they've simply disappeared; by various estimates between 1000 and 5000 have disappeared.
posted on December 10, 2001 11:54:06 PM
How do you deal with a 12th-century mentality which believes that martyrdom is a shortcut to heaven? With individuals who blow themselves up for the sake of Allah, killing as many men, women and children as possible? With parents who raise their own children to be suicide bombers?
There is no political issue. It is a fanatical, religious hatred. And there is no question as to who is morally in the right.
We ignored the problem of evil for too long. WTC was the result. We can't ignore it any more.
posted on December 11, 2001 10:51:23 AM
Sorry Donny, but the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens regarding relations with the U.S. government and as between States and the U.S. government. Your interpretation of the Constitution is one that gets U.S. citizens in trouble while in foreign countries. Some due process would apply to a suspect until it is shown that the subject is not a U.S. citizen.
It is an interesting concept to apply the U.S. Constitution to everyone in the World. But it's academic.
Seeing as how many of the terrorists had forged documents, merely claiming you're a U.S. citizen is certainly a rebuttable presumption.
posted on December 11, 2001 12:47:08 PM
"Sorry Donny, but the Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens regarding relations with the U.S. government and as between States and the U.S. government."
You're wrong, Reamond. Aliens, even illegal aliens, come under Constitutional due process protections.
Americans in foreign countries has nothing to do with it.
posted on December 11, 2001 05:52:27 PM
The due process afforded is only to establish their status.
One established that they are an illegal alien, none of the Constitutional civil rights apply. The only right they have is to declare a destination, and they get a free trip "home".
The Constitution only applies to illegal aliens who claim legal citizenship, and then only to determine if they are a citizen.
The equal protection clause doesn't even apply to legal aliens. They can be deported for commiting any crime, or at the behest of the State Dept., and may receive only an administrative hearing.
The Constitution only thinly applies to illegal aliens in determining their actual status. Once it is determined they are not a citizen, the Constitution no longer applies, they are at the hands of Federal policy through administrative agencies.
posted on December 11, 2001 07:42:37 PM
Reamond, I don't know where you get the idea that aliens aren't covered by Constitutional protections, but you're wrong.
Do some research and you'll realize that. Or just keep on blowing off with your own made up ideas. Whatever.
posted on December 11, 2001 10:28:53 PM
Well Donny, show me in Constitutional Juris Prudence where you can force deportation of a U.S citizen. Show me where you can Constitutionally jail a U.S. citizen indefinitely without a trial or hearing, unless in time of open revolt or revolution.
Equal protection for aliens falls under the rational basis test, which basically means any rational reason a state gives and comports with Congress will allow discrimantion against aliens- it is called the Sugarman exception, see Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, Ambach v. Norwick. It need not comport with the Constitution, but only with Congress. An alien can be as a matter of law denied the right to hold elective office, legislative positions, judicial positions, probation officer, police position, public school teachers, and denied medicare benefits.
You don't know what you're talking about, and have little understanding of Constitutional law.
Alien rights are purely law created by Congress and enforced generally through administartive agencies- , 458 U.S.1, as demanded by the Constitution. Actions taken by states that discriminate against aliens need only comnport with Congressional mandates and not Constitutional rights that citizens enjoy. Illegal alien children have been granted the right to state public education, but only because the Court could not find any identifiable Congressional policy to the contrary , 457 U.S. 252. So, without regard to the Constitution, Congress can specifically allow states to deny public education to aliens.
As applied to the Federal government, denying due process to aliens is given deference to actions taken directly by Congress and the President over delegated administrative rules and more so if expressly stated by Congress.426 U.S. 88 and 426 U.S. 67.
Can you show me where an act of Congress could deny an identifiable minority of citizens judically recognized equal protection by an act of Congress in clear denial of Constitutional protections ? It can be done to aliens because they do not have Constitutional rights, but only rights created or granted through Congress.
For alien rights, whether illegal or legal aliens, the Court has clearly placed in the hands of the Congress. A Constitutional right can not be denied by Congressional action, alien rights are defined by Congress, not the Constitution.
posted on December 11, 2001 11:05:09 PM
Aliens shall enjoy, in accordance with domestic law and subject to the relevant international obligation of the State in which they are present, in particular the following rights:
(a) The right to life and security of person; no alien shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; no alien shall be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law;
(b) The right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence;
(c) The right to be equal before the courts, tribunals and all other organs and authorities administering justice and, when necessary, to free assistance of an interpreter in criminal proceedings and , when prescribed by law, other proceedings;
The Bill of Rights does not grant foreigners the right to enter the United States, but once here, immigrants are entitled to certain broad constitutional protections. Due Process -- the right to be treated fairly, whether in a deportation hearing or a criminal court proceeding -- applies to every person within U.S. borders. And Equal Protection prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin. An alien's rights to free speech and religious freedom are protected under the First Amendment. The Refugee Act of 1980
gives certain aliens the right to political asylum in the U.S.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW
Our Constitution guarantees due process of law to all persons, including aliens in the U.S. The concept of due process of law requires that specified orderly procedures be followed in the enactment, administration, and enforcement of the laws. The Constitution also guarantees each person equal protection under the law. This concept means that the law applies to all equally, regardless of status, wealth, or position, and that the state may not discriminate between person for
arbitrary and capricious reasons. There are, of course, special laws and regulations that establish the conditions under which international students and scholars may study, teach, or pursue research in the
U.S., but within these general and reasonable limits, international students and scholars and other aliens in the U.S. are subject to the same laws and are guaranteed the same protection of the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.
posted on December 12, 2001 01:29:27 AM
Better go back, reamond, to read this time. But you haven't cited any constitutional law at all, not even a case of interpeted law. You babble along, merrily I hope, in the belief that verbage alone will lend you the feeling that you have prevailed. Instead of that, unfortunately, all that you do is display for all the limits of your thinking and the shallow depth of your understanding of what you do think about. You may not have noticed that no one takes the time to respond--no, I take that back; I'm quite sure that you do notice THAT and derive from it the mistaken idea that you are right and have 'won'. Without addressing the mental abberations which drive you to find that marvelous feeling I will point out to you without a hope that you will believe it that people ignore you because you have shown yourself to be not worth noticing. You see, by brute force you can actually teach old dogs new tricks. That, not your perverse interpretation, is why Donny signed off of you as a waste of her time.
posted on December 12, 2001 01:33:33 AM
Yeah krs, you tried to tell us Congress can not delegate powers in another post, until you had your nose rubbed in it.
You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to Constitutional law. I can't believe you'd cited the UN, the ACLU, and a human rights manefesto as authoritative on the US Constitution.
[ edited by REAMOND on Dec 12, 2001 01:35 AM ]
posted on December 12, 2001 02:23:11 AM
Why reamond, you dope, the United States is signatory to the U.N by charter.
Have you looked lately at the fifth amendment to the constitution? Guess not.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not make law, silly, it interprets law, and in the matter of the rights of illegal aliens it has recognized that they do have protections under the law just as you and I do. In one case that you might not understand equally with any others you may have encountered, HOFFMAN PLSTCS v NLRB, they even went so far as to say that illegal aliens had the right to compensatory damages for unfair labor practices EVEN AFTER THEY HAD BEEN DEPORTED but made clear that they were not to re-enter the country illegally in order to collect. The text is really almost humorous but I know that you would miss that even if you were able to somehow accidentally find the case.
Bye now, dope. I'm with Donny. But go back sometime and try to make sense of the things ou say.
"The Constitution only applies to illegal aliens who claim legal citizenship, and then only to determine if they are a citizen"
posted on December 12, 2001 04:50:42 AM
"Can you show me where an act of Congress could deny an identifiable minority of citizens judically recognized equal protection by an act of Congress in clear denial of Constitutional protections?"
How about an executive order, 9066 specifically?
"Show me where you can Constitutionally jail a U.S. citizen indefinitely without a trial or hearing, unless in time of open revolt or revolution."
And, along with all those American-born citizens of Japanese descent, how about Ezra Pound?
Sure, you haven't seen any loss of civil liberties! And console yourself with the mistaken idea that your supra-citizenship will protect you, while the government keeps itself busy with slapping around them aliens that don't got no rights no how 'cause the Constitution don't mention them.
Just don't try to tell it to American-born survivors of WWII internment camps.
posted on December 12, 2001 03:36:48 PM
krs- Being signatory to a UN charter does not usurp US sovereignty nor deny the supremacy of the Constitution over nay treaty signed. Any treaty that caused a case or contraversy before the Court that offended the Constitution would cause the treaty to have no effect in the issue. To find otherwise would allow the President who has exclusive power to negotiate treaties, and the Senate which must consent to the treaty, to circumvent, effectually change and amend the Constitution. A treaty that offends the Constitution has no effect.
"The Supreme Court does not make law". Ever hear of judicial activism and its opponents/proponents ? Courts not only interpret laws, but apply them. Application also includes whom laws apply to. Justice Marshall established this nearly 2 centuries ago by soundly stating for the Court it is the " province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"'.
Donny- my exposition of the reality of lack of Constitutional protections for aliens is not my personal opinion, but the law. Personally, anyone under arrest in the U.S. should have an immediate right to a lawyer, and a hearing and trial as soon as possible. Aliens more times than not languish in jails under deportation orders without these rights. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU can do little to change the situation unless the Constitution is amended to take immigration out of the hands of Congress, because any judicial remedy the ACLU might seek can always be rendered moot by deportation and/or an act of Congress.
The nut case Ashcroft is pushing the issue to the extreme. But, this has happened every time we have had a war. Pound, as well as Eugene Debs have had their rights as citizens vindicated sooner or later, but it is always after the crisis has subsided.
However, a good argument is made that survival of the Republic is paramount, or the rights we strive to fullfil or realize are useless if the Republic fails to exist. If the Republic survives, it's wrongs can be rectified at a later date. This has been the tactic used by the courts in times of war. But the Constitution also expressly states that in times of war, invaision, and revolution, Habeas Corpus can be suspended.
posted on December 12, 2001 07:56:27 PM
Reamond, you pointed to the Constitution and said that because aliens were not addressed in regards to due process rights, that that meant they had no Constitutional protections. And that's just wrong. Backwards, even.
It would be equivalent to saying that because the Constitution did not mention guys named Bob, that guys named Bob didn't have any either.
The lack of distinction between people on the basis of citizenship in the Constitution goes directly against your proposition. It's precisely because they're not designated as an "other" class that they come under the same provisions.
The distinction you're trying to make is one of citizen vs. non-citizen and you've fabricated some Constitutional basis for it. Not only is there no Constitutional basis for it, but it's not even a valid distinction. History clearly shows, as in the cases of the internment of U.S. citizens in WWII, that the line isn't drawn on a Constitutional basis between citzen and non-citizen, but on a political basis between the less-politically powerful and the more-politically powerful. You're not going to find a citizenship basis in the Constitution to protect you, and you're not going to find a non-citizenship basis in the Constitution to uphold doing it to others.
The way it's done is politically, through the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch (acting as political agents).
And your claim of the lack of Constitutional protections for non-citizens is not the law, merely your made up mish-mash of silliness, a fanciful step 1, step 2, step 3 template. Interesting theory.
posted on December 12, 2001 09:39:21 PM
It is not my theory, it is the Supreme Court's "theory".
The bottom line is that aliens do not enjoy the Constitutional rights that citizens do.
The only thing convoluted here is your and krs's mixing up how you'd like things to be and what the state of the law actually is.
Aliens can be and are legally discriminated against in many ways of which you and I can not be. Citizens enjoy Constututional rights and priveleges which aliens do not, because the Constitution addresses the relationship between citizens and government. The rights of aliens are left to the Congress.
Whether 2 or all 3 branches of the government make decisions based on political reasons isn't revelant to the case. The result is the same.
If you and krs feel this strongly about the issue, I fully expect you both to donate to the DNC, and ACTIVLY campaign and register voters in the comming elections. I don't think hanging chads will be a problem in the next election. In any event, the Constitution lacks both the language and existing juris prudence to support your ideals about the treatment of aliens. Vote early and vote often !!
posted on December 12, 2001 09:42:44 PM
Wanted to add to you both- I am both glad and optimistic that you both feel strongly about these issues. People being concerned can translate into political action.
