I honestly don't know how you can support the Bush Administration and still consider yourself an American anymore.
The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."
It's a sign of a deep rot in our society that someone can say this, even anonymously, without being mocked. SCMT is right.
Well of course. After all, passing unconstitutional legislation buys you years of time while it works its way up to the Supremes, and even then you've got pretty much a 50/50 chance with the packed court. They'd be fools not to play the odds.
I just want to start phoning random members of the administration and shrieking "A government of laws, not of men!" into the phone and then hanging up. But I recognize that this would be counterproductive.
9: I thought that was what she meant by "counterproductive".
"... I went out to Charing Cross, to see Major-general Harrison hanged, drawn; and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition. He was presently cut down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at which there was great shouts of joy. It is said, that he said that he was sure to come shortly at the right hand of Christ to judge them that now had judged him; and that his wife do expect his coming again. Thus it was my chance to see the King beheaded at White Hall, and to see the first blood shed in revenge for the blood of the King at Charing Cross. From thence to my Lord's, and took Captain Cuttance and Mr. Sheply to the Sun Tavern, and did give them some oysters."--Samuel Pepys.
I'm waiting for the day John Podhoretz is appointed Chief Executioner.
10: Oh. I was thinking: convince them they are beset by enemies and must take desperate measures.
These guys blew through the U.S. Constitution by the end of 2001 and have been working on reversing the Magna Carta since then.
We need some war crimes trials.
We need some war crimes trials.
At the very least.
Gratuitous pedantry: Star Chamber was really an early modern, not a medieval court. It rose to prominence under Henry VII, and was abolished at the outbreak of the Revolution in 1641. It effectively used Continental "inquisitorial" procedures, and, I think, was staffed by officials trained in the civil rather than the common law (though the judges were members of the Privy Council).
More pedantry: "Before becoming a forum in 1630s for unpopular prosecution of sedition and ecclesiastical offenses, Star Chamber exercised civil and misdemeanor jurisdiction and handled real property matters, often providing access to justice that was otherwise unavailable." See Sam Bu/ell, No/vel Crim/inal Fra/ud 81 NYU L. REV. (forthcoming 2006). Manuscript at FN34 (citing J.H. BA/KER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENG/LISH LEGAL HISTORY 136-37 (3d ed. 1990) for the quoted proposition). And edited by yours truly.
When (how) did the Star Chamber become an ecclesiastical court? Was it with the establishment of the Church of England?
The Act in Restraint of Appeals (a key part of Henry VIII's rejection of the papacy) moved appelate jurisdiction from the courts run by English bishop from the Roman curia to English courts. I don't know all the ins and outs, but by the end of the sixteenth century there was a court of Ecclesiastical Commissioners (which operated according to some version of Roman/Canon law -- they were procedurally similar), but somehow appeals also ran to the royal council. Star Chamber was simply the judicial arm of the royal council. Star Chamber was actually very popular through the sixteenth century, because it was faster and cheaper than the common-law courts. Only in the seventeenth century did it develop a reputation for tyrrany. Of course, abolishing it didn't abolish the possibility of government abuse. If you ever want to be scared shitless by a master, read the section on the Bloody Assizes in Macauley's History of England.
15: Embarrassed confession: that wasn't an actual memory of a class I was pulling up, just random reading.
For those of us who aren't lawyers, but have the sense to know this is wrong whether or not it's unconstitutional (and hope, perhaps naively, that surely it is unconstitutional), what do we do? Is this where we start calling our senators?
You could. You could also wait until it's up for a vote, but jumping the gun won't hurt anything.
19. Thanks JWP. I'm familiar with the disconnect between ecclesiastical and secular courts with respect to benefit of clergy (that let folks off by pleading the book), but had included the Star Chamber in that constellation.
Along that (tenuous) line, it is fascinating how the English and Continental judicial systems adapted to the 4th Lateran Council's ruling that clergy could no longer take part in trials by ordeal/combat. Unexpected consequences of an act.
13- War crime trials apparantly coming to the Haditha Marines. War crime trials already concluded on Abu Grahaib guards. The war crime trials you want, however, will never happen. Calls for more war crime trials will result in more trials, but for some PFC doing the wrong thing while someone was watching.
24: I am aware of the political reality, but believe that I am right and political reality is wrong on this one.
Although, on reflection, I'm not sure it's so much war crimes I want this lot tried for as treason. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Is this where we start calling our senators?
Like LB says, this might not be a bad idea. Contacting them now, when the issue isn't in the air much, will draw their attention to it and maybe influence their positions, whereas if you wait until it's up for a vote they could well already have decided. It would only work if a lot of people did it, though.
Note that civil rights, though not water-soluble, do dissolve in feces.
The real problem isn't this Administration. The real problem is that this Administration is correct when it believes that it can pursue these ends openly with minimal opposition. The Administration will leave in two and a half years; the people supporting it are (barring our own Yoo) citizens for life.
28: Yes and no. I don't believe the American people today are particularly better or worse than they've been at other times in our history. This Administration and this Republican Party have badly bent the political norms that have made it possible for our system to continue to exist. Those norms now need to be repaired and reinforced by making the future of Bush, Cheney, Rumself, et al. look like something no future politician wants any part of. We've succeeded in doing that in times of similar peril in the past, but it's not automatic.
I'm not sure we've ever done it in modern times in the face of such a small threat. We're willing to give away basic notions of what it means to be an American for the damage done by 19 nutters. What happens when we face a real threat?
But at least Republicans are more likely to value individual liberty in all of its forms than Democrats. Or so I've been told.
Again, I'd say yes and no. For most people, the issue is not Presidential power, it's "getting tough on terrists" or some variant thereof. It's not that they've thought about and accepted the view that the President should have the power to grab, torture, and hold indefinitely anyone he decides is a threat, it's that they think the President's just going after the terrists and anyone who's worried about totalitarianism in this country is just an alarmist tinfoil-hatter (and probly soft on them terrists, too).
I think the majority of the public has always been pretty much this bad, but we've been saved by mixing in some amount of decent leadership with the bad leadership and by the fact that there are normally enough people with enough incentives that the population can be gotten fired up about something else and convinced to throw the bastards out before too much damage is done.
I'm not sure it's so much war crimes I want this lot tried for as treason. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Amen.
For most people, the issue is not Presidential power, it's "getting tough on terrists" or some variant thereof.
Isn't that the nature of the decline of a republic? No one's ever explicitly for scaling back liberties; they just wake up one day in the empire and wonder what happened.
34: I think that's right. What I'm suggesting is that it isn't the virtue of the people that's prevented that from happening until now, but only that we've had enough politicians who were either virtuous (to whatever degree) or vicious along a different axis than the politicians in power that leadership of the sort we have now couldn't develop enough momentum to overturn the Constitutional applecart. I don't think it's our institutions per se that save us. They're well-designed to get generally decent governance out of generally lousy people, but they can't survive without some number of capable and decent people pulling things back on track when they threaten to spin out of control.
DaveL:
I think you're probably right in 32 and 34. It's just that it takes so few people, now, to scare the hell out of us. I guess I never really realized how willing we are to flip on what I think of as basic notions of American-ness, and I'm continually going through profound culture shock. As I've said before, the last few years have given me a certain empathy (if zero sympathy) for people who have opposed the various civil rights movements of the last fifty years.
As I've said before, the last few years have given me a certain empathy (if zero sympathy) for people who have opposed the various civil rights movements of the last fifty years.
I missed this, where was it? And what exactly was it?
Yup. I made the mistake of engaging a little bit with an argument on the Middle East on another board the other day. It didn't take a whole lot to get a guy whom I take to be somewhat better informed than most and not completely stupid (although Lord, he's not bright) to concede that yes, if it came to that he'd be OK with wiping out the entire Muslim population of the world in order to solve terrorism once and for all. He didn't think it would come to that, though: he was confident that "after the first couple of Islamofascist stronghold cities/supporting governments are obliterated, that moderate and secularists in the region will quickly turn on the extremists in an effort prevent the same fate" (I cut and pasted to make sure I got that right).
And hell, I confessed my own political sins yesterday, and I'm smarter and better-informed than most. Ignorance is powerful stuff.
As I've said before, the last few years have given me a certain empathy (if zero sympathy) for people who have opposed the various civil rights movements of the last fifty years.
I'm not clear on what you're getting at. Please explain.
I just meant that I have a certain feeling of empathy for people whose world changed very quickly. You spend most of your life thinking that you're being a good person by policing racial boundaries, and then you learn you're pretty much evil. I happen to think you were pretty much evil (no sympathy), particularly as you continued to fight integration, etc., but I no longer find incomprehensible or inhuman the fact that you did continue to fight it. At base, I think we all want a comprehensible world; it is jarring when the values you thought were well neigh universal turn out not to be.
Yeah, I agree with Tim (and I understood what he wrote the first time). Massive cultural shifts are inherently unsettling, and losing power (real or perceived) is always going to feel "unfair."
Is this like the Kuhnian thing where we just wait for all the Copernicans to die out?
We don't have to wait; be proactive!
(Thread pauses while we wonder how SCMT is going to get internet access at Guantanamo.)
I assume I'll use ogged's connection. You don't really think he's recuperating from cancer, do you?
I always believe exactly what ogged says, so of course.
160 is so very true. I really thought that Westminster Abbey was going to blow up when EltonJohn launched into that rendition.
I have to admit to a certain fondness for Simon and Garfunkel. Their 1981 Concert in Central Park was the first CD I ever owned, and The Boxer spoke to my angst-ridden teenage self. "In the clearing stands a boxer; he's a fighter by his trade, and he carries the reminders of every blade that cut him till he cried out in gis anger and his shame/ I aleaving, I am Leaving/But the fighter still remains, yes he still remains."
I so identified with the Boxer.
Don't know how I managed to do that. There was some complicated cut-and-paste stuff going on.
It's remarkable how much confidence the Administration has that Stevens &/or Ginsburg won't be on the Court when the challenge to these rules gets there.
If Stevens & Ginsburg gave a free concert in Central Park, I would attend.
This is all mind-boggling stuff. Unfortunately, the UK is also going the same way.
It's hard not to look on all these measures and feel despair at our chances of beating them.
a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence
This from the same people who piss and moan about "activist judges."