Lebell....your "cure" (and Tony Blair's), to me...seem much worse than the disease. I am pleased to offer closely aligned opinions relevant to this thread's core question, from Reagan appointed U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour and from Charles V. Peña, director of defense policy studies at the [CONSERVATIVE} Cato Institute.
Who shall we place our trust in to abridge the right of due process under the law, so as only to affect the targeted suspects "du jour"? If the decision taken on this forum, on or about July 24, to block the further display of "thread views", is an indication of a deliberate act of authority, "for our own good", is any indication of a failure to anticipate an unintended consequence, (the decline in interest and in participation on TFP Politics...noticeable since the July 24 "change"....) those in authority never possess the ability to fully act in their own best interests.....let alone everyone else's. Hence...the need for a vigorous defense...at all times....and in all circumstances....of the unadulterated rights as they are reaffirmed in our constitution, and in the body of law that defines similar protections of rights in the UK.
To argue otherwise, or to permit an assault on our rights, such as the "Patriot" Acts, is as eloquently described by Judge Coughenour (below).
Quote:
|
"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
|
Quote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/12236957.htm
Posted on Wed, Jul. 27, 2005
Click here to find out more!
Judge's comments in Ressam sentencing
Associated Press
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour's comments during Wednesday's sentencing hearing for Ahmed Ressam, as provided by court officials.
Ressam, an Algerian national, was sentenced to 22 years for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.
"OK. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.
"I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely.
"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:
"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.
"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.
"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.
"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.
"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.
"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.
"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."
|
Quote:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4019
July 27, 2005
A Useless, Intrusive P.R. Display
by Charles V. Peña and Ted Galen Carpenter
Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute and a terrorism analyst for MSNBC.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of six books, including Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic..........
..........Random searches on the subway are as useless as random searches of airline passengers at the gate—a practice that fortunately has been eliminated by the Transportation Security Agency after TSA administrator James M. Loy decided it was a "stupid rule."...............
........Officials in Washington, DC and San Francisco are waiting to see what happens in New York before deciding to implement random searches on Metro and BART, respectively. But deliberation won't change the fact that random searches are both ineffective and a gross violation of constitutional rights. The decision should be a no-brainer.
The outrage in America after the London tube bombings is certainly understandable—as is the desire for Americans to feel safe. At most, that's all random searches on the subway will do: make people feel safer. But such measures won't actually make them safer. It is all too easy to adopt the attitude of one New York subway passenger: "It's just part and parcel of the world we live in."
But nothing could be further from the truth. The world we live in is represented by the Constitution and the principles upon which American society rests. As such, we should heed Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Random searches on the subway ultimately mean we have neither.
|