I am not going to do a full dissection of Sarah Palin’s $100k Tea Party speech. Suffice it to say it reminded me of the 2008 presidential debates – when republicans were simultaneously speaking about limited government, the constitution and freedom while, at the very same time, blatantly advocating policies and ideals that are in complete opposition to those values. I am not sure whether I should be more surprised that republican politicians haven’t changed at all or that the Tea Party movement as an actual force for bringing the conservatives back to the principles of the “old right” is effectively dead. If they didn’t boo Palin off the stage when she revealed very clearly that her motives and agenda was to promote the kind of pragmatic Neo-Conservatism which got the GOP slaughtered only a few years ago, you would think they would have done it when she started defending and praising John McCain – an obvious opponent of the Tea Party’s so called principles.
Some gems from her speech:
Now, in many ways, Scott Brown represents what this beautiful movement is all about.
No, Scott Brown is a pretty left-wing republican, and generally supports the idea of government-run healthcare. But even worse, he represents exactly what will completely invalidate this movement: voting party over principle, short-termism over lasting change.
This one made me vomit:
[Speaking of alleged bomber Abdul Mutallab] After he was captured, he was questioned for only fifty minutes. We had a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for fifty minutes and then read his Miranda Rights. The administration says then, “There are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendents.” But a lot of us would beg to differ.
For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer because he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. Constitutional right to remain silent…Our U.S. Constitutional rights. Our rights that you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE] fought and were willing to die for to protect in our Constitution. The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States army is willing to die for. The protections provided—thanks to you sir [PALIN ADDRESSES MALE VETERAN IN AUDIENCE]—we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and wants to destroy our Constitution and our country? This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we’re going to deal with the terrorists. We don’t have to go down that road.
The duplicity here is astounding. First, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window. She then objects to this man being allowed a lawyer to represent him. She effectively invokes nationalism in the name of constitutionalism. Makes the blunder of thinking the military is somehow fighting for our freedom (the constitution, which Palin invokes so often, makes it clear that our rights come from God, not from soldiers killing people on foreign soil). Then lays out a version of that old neo-conservative mantra: “they hate us for our freedom.”
If the tea party eats this up, then this “movement” is just going to be yet another rah-rah-republicans pep rally, ending with a predictable result: GOP victories in 2010 and 2012 which lead to more spending, more imperialism and bigger government.
You may also be interested in:
Amen, brother. If the best she can do is cheap shots and sarcasm, Sarah’s a featherweight.
She is indeed a lightweight. She is not the real deal. Debra Medina on the other hand is.
It’s too funny. In the late summer of 2008 when candidate John McCain announced his curious choice of a running mate, I immediately ran to the computer to do a google-search of the name, “Sarah Palin”. I knew next-to-nothing about the woman other than the fact that she was the governor of Alaska. The first thing in her paper-thin biography that stood out for me was the date of her birth: February 11, 1964. I remember that day – distinctly! That was the day my beloved grandma, Loretta Doran Clements, died in South Bend, Indiana at the age of sixty-eight.
But other than that interesting coincidence there was not a heck of a lot in her biography that really stood out. Truth be told, I was more than a little puzzled as to why the GOP would think her an asset to the ticket. The moment she opened her mouth at her first campaign stop in Dayton, Ohio, I could only think of one thing:
Sally Field as “Gidget”.
When someone like Sarah Palin can make it as far as she has, it can mean only one thing and it’s not a particularly good sign: we are living in a culture that has been custom-tailored for idiots. When a person who can barely put two coherent sentences together without the aid of a teleprompter becomes one of the best-selling non-fiction authors of the decade, that’s usually a pretty good indicator that society is spiraling downward at a fairly decent clip. Fasten your seat belts, kiddies!
I had always believed that Monty Python alumni Michael Palin was the funniest person in the world to bear that name. In fact it should be stated for the record that the two Palins are equally funny. The only difference is that Michael works very hard at it. Sarah’s funniness, on the other hand, is purely accidental. The woman is a scream; the Buster Keaton of unintentional comedy.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
I’m sorry, but if Sarah Palin is the candidate for president three years from now, It is going to make my life a whole hell of a lot easier. If she wins it will make my life a dream come true. As a blogger, I will never again have to touch my computer keyboard. These things will write themselves.
I know this sounds exceedingly selfish on my part and I am embarrassed to say it in so public a forum. I hope she never goes away. For the self-described political satirist, she is the gift that keeps giving and giving and giving….
I’m so ashamed.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen NY
“The duplicity here is astounding. First, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window. She then objects to this man being allowed a lawyer to represent him.”
Colin, you might want to study up on the rule of law in this country. Your ignorance of it is amazing for someone who pontificates about it so often.
Darius, the rule of law applies to all people imprisoned or tried on US soil. That’s why Guantanimo has been heavily criticised and debated (as it is technically not US soil). So, it doesn’t look like Colin is displaying ignorance of that part of the law. The right to counsel is also one without qualification and is even more explicit in the Bill of Rights….So what rule of law is Colin missing here? Are you suggesting these rights do not extend to foreigners?
Darius, the phrase “rule of law” means that a consistent set of rules is used rather than decisions being made on a case by case basis. In the aftermath of 9/11, it is understandable that people had a hard time adhering to the rule of law, and wanted to treat it as a “different kind of war” that didn’t have rules. We are far enough past that now to admit to the errors committed and return to following our laws.
In the US, “rule of law” means that we adhere to the constitution. The bill of rights applies to everyone who is here. The bill of rights was never intended as applying only to citizens, but rather was an acknowledgment of God given rights to all humans. Miranda warnings* are simply a reminder of someone’s 5th amendment right to avoid incrimination. Do we need to warn enemy combatants? That’s for the Supreme Court to determine. Do they have the right to remain silent? According to the rule of law and our understanding of God given rights to all humans, absolutely.
Unless it is your suggestion that terrorists aren’t people, the bill of rights applies to terrorists. It is an embarrassment to the nation that we would hold people outside US soil to allow us to circumvent US law. If people like you hate the US constitution, then change it. Don’t just use your activist lawyers to pretend it doesn’t apply to you.
* Failing to give a Miranda warning isn’t even going to result in terrorists being released! All failing to give a warning does is make confessions that result inadmissible in court. They can still be used to stop other terrorist attacks or catch other bad guys.
Nevermind, the groupthink here is beyond hope. It is awful that otherwise intelligent people would suggest trying terrorists with the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Darius, the “group think” is that you believe the US constitution is a piece of toilet paper you can disregard at will. Such disrespect for our nation’s founding fathers and national heritage are things of which I never would have though you capable. It is a shame to see someone who used to be so patriotic become so anti-American.
“Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Again, is it your position that terrorist should no longer be considered as people? Are we Rome, that we grant human rights only to citizens, and allow our government to take any action whatsoever against non-citizens? Questions like whether water boarding is torture are a matter of opinion, but whether terrorists have rights is not.
Hmm, last time I checked we were in a “time of war”… lest you forgot. There is a reason that the Geneva Convention didn’t give certain rights to enemies without a state.
So you would suggest we just try terrorists like we try any American civilians, with all the same rights and protections? Are you completely insane? Even Obamessiah has seen the light on this issue once he got beyond the partisan anti-Bush rhetoric… what happens if some stupid little legal loophole finds them not guilty? It amazes me that the same people who don’t trust our legal system in some areas suddenly puts so much trust in it when dealing with terrorists.
Darius, I don’t want to get in a whole argument but I think you need to see past this:
Your first mistake is believing the lies that this man’s legal status is a “terrorist” – his legal status is an “alleged terrorist.” The alleged crime does not change the status of a person before the law.
Until you are willing to see the law as law – that is something the government is under (rather than can manipulate/ignore/reinterpret to suit it’s current agenda) then we will not agree on this. The groupthink here is not with people who take the definition of law as it has been defined in US legal documents and republican history. The groupthink is this view of “consequentialist law” (This is a sloppy term, but I can’t think of a better one – basically, the view that law applies here, but not here, based on the pragmatics of a certain government/party agenda – which irnoically, is much more akin to Orwell’s view of “groupthink”). The “law” of neo-conservative media and politicians believes that it has the right by popular mandate, fear and outright hubris to make sweeping, unsubstantiated modifications to law in this country and that is summed up by calling this man a terrorist before he has been tried and convicted as such… in a court of law.
Actually we are not – according to our legal documents and precedents. If we were at war, this man might be treated as an enemy combatant. But unless we are at war, then this man has every right that our documents and legal precedents say he has. But this is another example of the problem – even “war” – which is a specific legal state between two groups or nations – has been simply redefined and applied for pure pragmatism. A country of law does not do this kind of thing – and people who believe in law must be willing to see it when it is so obvious.
And yet you are doing the exact same kind of move by not trusting it when dealing with terrorists. I think it would be fairer to say that most people don’t like the loopholes that people exploit, not the legal system itself. And on that note, it looks like we’re in agreement on methods and locations, it’s a matter of differences of opinion as to how to close those loopholes.
Secondly, the problem with the ‘time of war’ rhetoric is that it feeds the very ‘groupthink’ you’re whinging about. The Geneva Conventions apply to any signatory nation that is in an armed conflict, regardless of its opponents (read Common Article 2). Additionally, it rarely specified ‘enemies without a state’ because such groups were unthinkable in the 20s and 40s when the bulk of the Conventions were agreed upon; it has nothing to do with approval by silence. Finally, we may be in a ‘time of war’ but we are not at war. That is a power that the Senate controls and it has not declared war since WW2. Read the Senate resolutions: they are authorisation for use of military force, not actual declarations of war (and the confusion here is largely due to sloppy language). Incidentally, the SCOTUS has agreed with this interpretation when it ruled against Guantanimo (in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). With all of that in mind, yes, I say we should try terrorists like any other person with all the same rights and protections. Some of us may consider them less than human, and we shouldn’t stoop down to being less than human as well. The language of the Constitution and the Amendments — as well as their interpretations in the courts — are clear that the rights and protections apply to all people, not just American citizens. Further, if we wish to talk about international conventions, then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says the same thing.
“Such disrespect for our nation’s founding fathers…”
It’s ironic because I think it’s fairly safe to say that the founding fathers would have just executed these terrorists if they were caught attempting to kill innocent U.S. citizens. Reading him “Miranda rights” or get a jury of his peers to convict him would have been furthest from their minds. Maybe not, but that seems the likely route they would have taken.
Regarding being at war or not, while we may not be technically “at war,” our de facto status is we’re very much at war. Talk to any military person and he’ll agree. As such, in war the rules change.
Perhaps we all agree that how to deal with non-state terrorists should be cleared up in our laws, since few people considered that topic when first setting out our laws (very different from rights, which some people seem to confuse the two). Currently, no one has strong legal standing on how to deal with these lunatics. So the pragmatists/”neocons” take a strong approach while the liberals take a weak approach, but neither have clear legal support as of yet.
I’m sorry, you believe that the Geneva Convention overrides the US constitution?
I’m suggesting we treat the US Constitution as the underlying rule of law that it is.
So you don’t believe in the rule of law. That’s at least a consistent and honest position, unlike your claim that you DO believe in rule of law while in fact arguing for different rules on a case by case basis.
They may have done so, but it would have been illegal and in violation of the principles laid down in the US Constitution.
Absolutely. This would allow “rule of law” to take place. That said, any laws made MUST adhere to the US Constitution, which guarantees that a person cannot be forced to give testimony against themselves (though they CAN be forced to give testimony against others) or be held responsible for a crime of which they have not been convicted. We have successfully and without problems tried a number of terrorists already, and I see no reason why we cannot try and convict more.
Darius, this is the problem. What a military person thinks, what a senator thinks, what the president thinks, even what a general thinks – in a republic, these are all subservient to the law. And that law applies always, even in war. A nation of laws does not get to pick and chose when those laws apply. It holds itself to them. It honours them. It has integrity and discipline, even in the face of challenging circumstances and temptations to be expedient.
Since when in the history of this country have we treated war criminals or terrorists with the same rights as our own citizens?
Darius, not to sound like a broken record, but if we are a republic under the law, then:
1. WE ARE NOT AT WAR
2. ALLEGED TERRORISTS MUST BE CONVICTED AS SUCH IN A COURT OF LAW
There are no exceptions.
Just to be nitpicky, but I think exceptions can be worthwhile. Absolutes are over-rated. With that said, I think that most exceptions should be more restrictive on government (or less restrictive on a person). In this case, I suggest that EVEN IF we are at war, alleged terrorists must be convicted as such in a court of law. This is why I think 3rd party tribunals (e.g. The Hague) is a good thing because it reduces the possibility that one (or a nation) is using ‘justice’ as a thin veil for revenge. I fear that ‘civilised’ people fail to see the monsters lurking within themselves when faced with atrocities committed by dehumanised agents (i.e. the kind of rhetoric that declares ‘terrorists’ aren’t worthy of a free trial because they’re monsters and not fully human).
Oh, terrorists are fully human… and fully deserving of execution. The most civilized thing a country can do is execute murderers. Europe is quite uncivilized in this regard.
Darius said:
Since always, unless like you we decide to ignore history, the US constitution, and decades of legal precedent. There may be reasons to try some terrorists in military tribunals (especially those captured by US military forces during combat), but evading the US constitution is not one of them. So far, military tribunals have proven FAR less capable of convicting terrorists than the US court system.
The kind of fear mongering being done by the Republican party right now is simply un-American, and you should be ashamed to be taking part. The fact that you are not demonstrates that party loyalties mean more to you than your status as a US citizen and the rule of law. And I still consider myself a Republican. Everyone though should be willing to admit when what their party is advocating is dishonest, unconstitutional, and un-American.
Salon.com:
Darius said:
Civilian US courts have every right to execute murderers. There is no need for military tribunals to be able to execute murderers. Calling terrorists “enemy combatants” gives them more credit than they deserve. They are murderers, and should be treated as such. If the US government can prove they are indeed murderers, they should be executed. If the US government cannot, it allows the possibility that someone that was mistakenly captured who is in fact innocent being punished for crimes they did not commit. We can allow different rules of evidence without violating the US Constitution, we cannot force someone to testify against themselves though or refuse to provide a fair trial. To do so makes us no better than a lawless society ruled by an absolutist government.
I couldn’t care less about it being Republicans saying it, it’s the truth. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks because you don’t like my stance. I don’t watch Fox News either before you jump to that next tired canard. Unfortunately, spending your time with libertarians and liberals has apparently twisted your understanding of truth.
Darius, you are claiming that this is unprecedented and a violation of the rule of law. Both of these position have been demonstrated to be factually untrue. I don’t care what you watch or who you believe in, you are being willfully ignorant or dishonest. If you are not willing to be honest, there is little point discussing this with you further. Even Mitch McConnell agrees that Bush tried terrorists in US courts:
Newsmax said:
We can have an honest discussion about whether it is better to try the terrorist suspects in military tribunals or in civilian courts. We can have an honest discussion about whether Obama or Bush prosecuted them more heavily. What you are doing though isn’t honest debate, it is using statements we have proven are false but refusing to acknowledge that your information might have been wrong.
The rule of law (your initial point in post “Darius T. Feb 9th, 2010 at 1:21 pm”) absolutely allows terrorists to be tried in open court. What you said there was verifiably false. Either it was a mistake, in which case you should apologize to Colin, or it was a lie. Which was it? In your post “Darius T Feb 10th, 2010 at 7:35 pm”, you claim that we have never treated terrorists as criminal offenders in open court, and again were proven to be incorrect. Are you simply making uninformed statements (and hostile ones at that), or are you being dishonest?
Like I said, I am fully willing to discuss with you rationally, but you need to respect truth in the discussion. Regarding your “liberal” comment, I’m only liberal in the sense that I believe we should respect the US Constitution and the rule of law. If that makes me “liberal” in the modern political climate, so be it. Ignoring the Constitution is wrong whether it is republicans or democrats doing it.
Odd that you would use a quote that undermines your very point. McConnell admitted that when they did try terrorists in American courts it was a mistake. That was my point!!! Doing so is ridiculous.
“Miranda rights” are not some basic human right, it’s some made-up silliness (made up in 1966, for goodness sake!) that is currently being revoked and trimmed down in parts because of the unjust nonsense it leads to. Furthermore, as I keep saying, the 5th Amendment STATES that it doesn’t apply to war-time crimes. Now, you can rant and rave that we’re not at war until you’re blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is we ARE at war. Sure, our politicians have never had the political cajones to officially announce it, but that doesn’t change the fact that a bunch of terrorists are at war with us.
Darius, your statement wasn’t that it was a failed policy, it was that it was an unthinkable policy. Bush did it. “Miranda rights” don’t exist. It is a made up idea from TV. What we do have is a “Miranda warning”. The Miranda warning serves one purpose, and that is to inform the arrested of their 5th amendment rights. These rights weren’t invented in 1966, they were invented by our Founding Fathers (who you seem to have no respect for whatsoever).
More ignorance. Who CARES whether we are at war, the only exception for the 5th amendment doesn’t care whether we are at war, and it only applies to the armed forces. Below is from the Cornell law school, with links to appropriate case law. To summarize again, you are still either massively ignorant or dishonest, and are most likely repeating lies told to you by dishonest source either way. Any lawyer would know better than what you are saying:
CRS Annotated Constitution
For the sake of your integrity, can you please stop and think for a minute? You’re sounding more and more like a raving lunatic with every post. I know you’re capable of rational thought, please show some.
Oh, and the “Miranda rule” will not set terrorists free. Failing to read someone a miranda warning has one consequence, and only one: you cannot use what they say against them in court. If you arrest someone trying to light their explosive underpants on fire, you don’t need to read them the Miranda warning because you already have plenty of evidence to try and convict them. The suspect is not “magically released” because the soldier didn’t read them a Miranda warning. This is another TV LIE being propagated for political purposes:
Miranda rights
And yes, the question calls the rights “Miranda rights”, but Miranda rights are nothing more or less than the 5th amendment.
Hmm, are not terrorists a type of armed force? Or do they not qualify because they’re not citizens? In which case, then non-U.S. citizens shouldn’t fall under the 5th at all.
Whatever the case, your legal ignorance on this topic is amazing, and ironic. Courts have repeatedly ruled that the 5th Amendment does NOT apply to terrorists. Courts such as this one: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/hamdan-not-entitled-to-fifth-amendment.php It’s pretty much established legal precedent that the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply to non-citizens, particularly those who practice terrorism against this country. I am shocked that you are unaware of this.
Darius, the entire gist of the legal argument is that as long as we keep them outside our borders they aren’t subject to our laws. Does that seems like a moral or honest application of the US Constitution to you? The entire problem with Guantanamo is that it is a deliberate attempt to circumvent US law. That said, I would agree that that military tribunals may be a legitimate way of addressing some terrorists. There is an honest discussion to be had here, and I would be glad to have it with you.
First though, I need for you to show the integrity to admit that trying terrorists in civilian courts is NOT in violation of the rule of law, and that it is NOT unprecedented. Again, we can discuss whether it is desirable to do this, but until you demonstrate integrity about your past statements there really isn’t a point. Trying them in the US is neither crazy nor unprecedented. If we agree to this point, then we can have a much more useful discussion about whether it makes sense to do so.
Personally, the only place I see military tribunals making sense is when it is actually impractical to ship someone back to the US for trial. In 2006, the Supreme Court agreed with me: Jurist said:
Legally, the US President is allowed to simply declare the rules to be “impracticable”. Morally, they should not do so unless this is true. There is no strong practical reason why the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay cannot be tried in US courts or at least in a normal military court-martial. It took a rewriting of the laws to make the current tribunal process legal. Personally, I take the position that the 9/11 planners should be tried in public on the ground where the WTC stood. Show them that they can’t change us or scare us.
Doing so would be the strongest demonstration that what they did was nothing more than a criminal act, and then we could publicly execute them on the same lot. The main security cost of bringing the prisoner to the US would probably be keeping the US population from assassinating them. Acting like we are now is just comforting our enemy by making it look like we are terrified. Isn’t that how we let the terrorists win?
Darius, one of the ‘features’ of the detention camp in Guantanimo is that is isn’t US soil. That is so it is not under US jurisdiction and, consequently, the ‘rule of law’ of the US. In other words, the very act of keeping people detained there acknowledges what Atanamis is saying about Constitutional rights. If the detainees were taken onto US soil, it is understood that they would have the rights and privileges accorded to anyone else in the US (including a fair trial, presumed innocence, counsel, etc).
Now to be snarky, why do you assume that conservatives have some kind of monopoly on this ‘truth’ you suggest?
Cchrisr, that said, the US Supreme court has found that the loophole is legitimate. The US government apparently does not actually require the Constitution to be adhered to by military forces on foreign soil. Guantanamo isn’t technically illegal, since the US President is allowed to declare trials “impracticable”. I think that Bush abused this power, but it is a power granted to him by US law.
Under the Geneva convention, it MIGHT be compliant, with the one caveat being that they cannot be “special” tribunals. The Red Cross defines “special” as following rules different from those normally followed by the nation running the tribunal. Bush’s initial rules were found to be illegal, until they were modified and approved by Congress. The new rules are definitely in compliance with US law, and “probably” in compliance with the Geneva convention.
Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem with trying terrorists captured in combat operations under a fair military tribunal process, assuming they weren’t being brought to just outside our borders already. Trying terrorists in Iraq under a tribunal would be acceptable to me, so long as normal court martial rules (as applied to our own armed forces) were adhered to. People trying to blow up airplanes who are arrested by civil police authorities though should in all cases be tried in criminal courts.
There can be an honest conversation about what is “practical”, but what the Republicans are doing with this issue now though is dishonest. US law and the Geneva convention allow either civil or military courts to be used, the US is deliberately using loopholes in Guantanamo, and unless there is a severe practical reason for doing so we should stop. I have yet to hear a valid practical reason why we cannot try and convict these prisoners in US courts.
Personally, if the Congress will not agree to fund the closure of Guantanamo I’d recommend just letting them go (maybe give them a small boat to go where they choose). If Congress won’t fund their confinement, we shouldn’t continue to imprison them.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7381:the-earl-of-greenback-trillions&catid=129:obama-nation-building
This will indeed be interesting to watch.
Detailed fact hunt for terrorists tried in US courts: