Terrorism Derangement Syndrome

[Ddrak]

http://www.slate.com/id/2243429

This week Glenn Greenwald summarized how far the goal posts of normal have moved when he pointed out that "merely advocating what Ronald Reagan explicitly adopted as his policy—'to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against' terrorists—is now the exclusive province of civil liberties extremists." Upon being elected to the U. S. Senate last month, Scott Brown declared: "Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them." As Adam Serwer observed, "This is the new normal for Republicans: You can be denied rights not through due process of law but merely based on the nature of the crime you are suspected of committing. Brown's rhetorical framing, that jettisoning the legal system we've had for 200-plus years represents 'tradition' while granting suspected criminals the right to legal counsel represents liberalism gone mad is new, and I suspect we'll hear it again."

Americans are more scared of terrorism today than they were just after 9/11. There's something wrong there. Personally I suspect it's something about the human psyche that desires a "bad guy" and with the fall of the Soviet Union, there's been a succession of "bad guys" who really didn't amount to much until "terrorists" became the big winner and suddenly were worth tossing Reagan's sound advice out to the street.

Dd

[Partha]

Disagree. China fills the role of the USSR quite well for the good ole' boys.

The real problem is we've had a concerted effort for 40 years plus to destroy government and all it's works.

[Kulaf]

Americans are more scared of terrorism today than they were just after 9/11.

Umm......no. Just because people disagree on how to treat suspected/confirmed terrorists/enemy combatatants does not mean people are more frightened of terrorism. If anything I think people are more complacent.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I agree with Kulaf. And I also agree with the sentiment of Scott Brown.

"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation—they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime

He's absolutely correct on that part. The Constitution exists to protect the nation, more specifically, protect the nation by protecting its citizens (ain't nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing rights to non-citizens). I don't think Americans are afraid of terrorism, but they certainly have lost patience with the government to effectively deal with it.

I think though, suspected non-citizen terrorists should be treated as criminals of war, and be governed by the Geneva convention. In this particular case, an attack against a civilian target is punishable by death. PLease correct me if Im wrong there. Been awhile since I read the Convention.

[Kulaf]

Well while there nothing in the Constitution per se regarding the rights of non-citizens, it does establish treaties signed by the US as supreme laws. Thus we are bound to observe any international laws/treaties we have signed.

Unfortunatly what we really need is a new protocal for the GC that deals with non-state actors and their combatants. The GC suffers some blindness in its assumption that all hostilities will be based on national affiliation and not on political or religious ideology. It needs updating by the signators and not some BS International court.

[Ddrak]

Most of the rights in the constitution apply to non-citizens if you've been following the last 200 years or so of supreme court decisions. I have no idea where you got the idea that it wasn't that way, but it's just flat out wrong. Specifically, the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments have never seriously been considered as not applying to any person within US territory. Having lived in the US as a non-citizen, I actually researched a bunch of this before going (I'm hardly going to move to a place where I have no rights, am I?). Good refs:

http://www.acslaw.org/files/Immigration%20Law.pdf
http://nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_English2004.pdf


The comment on being more afraid of terrorists wasn't about "disagreeing", it was about disagreeing more and going more batshit insane in the "protections" people think are needed. I don't get how it could possibly be argued that people are more complacent when *failed* terror attempts result in people running around stupid and spending billions more in protections that don't do the job. If people weren't scared they'd be voting out the idiots who are spending the money in stupid places and beating the fear drum.

If people have "lost patience with the government" then where's the outcry against the TSA's dumb rules? Why is there even an argument against trying KSM in a civilian court and instead wanting to try him in a purely government (ie military) court. People aren't sick of the government - they're practically throwing their rights at the government in exchange for a warm fuzzy feeling of false security.


As for the Geneva Convention, it's quite clear on the treatment of captured non-combatant hostiles (4th GC):

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant" and I really don't think Kulaf is correct in his thought that the GC doesn't deal with non-state actors. It clearly defines them in the 4th GC, where they belong.


In addition, Brown is absolutely wrong and flying in the face of the constitution. The marvel of the constitution is it grants rights to everyone whether they are friend or foe. If you start picking and choosing "enemies" to deny all rights to before trying them then you may as well toss the whole thing out the window because it's meaningless, and remember that citizens can trivially be stripped of citizenship. Everyone has the right of a fair and speedy trial, not just those people you think deserve it.


As for China being the new Russia: No way. Not in the American Psyche and not even in reality. Can you imaging half the goods on the supermarket shelves in the 50's and 60's being "Made in the USSR"? Can you imaging the USSR being the "most favored trading partner"? Can you imaging the USSR holding a quarter of the national debt?

Dd

[Kulaf]

As for the Geneva Convention, it's quite clear on the treatment of captured non-combatant hostiles (4th GC):

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

There's no such thing as an "illegal combatant" and I really don't think Kulaf is correct in his thought that the GC doesn't deal with non-state actors. It clearly defines them in the 4th GC, where they belong.

Dd

Ok let's define "protected person":

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

So basically you have illustrated exactly what I was saying. This article protects civilians who are caught up in a war between two countries of which they are not citizens. It also phrases everything in terms of states......not non-state actors. So if a Saudi citizen is in Afghanistan fighting against US forces.......where does he fall under your cited convention?

[Ddrak]

So if a Saudi citizen is in Afghanistan fighting against US forces.......where does he fall under your cited convention?

Under the first paragraph, I would have thought? Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the convention (I believe), so their nationals are protected by the convention and when captured they find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict.

It's a little bit contorted, I agree, but it essentially says that if they are hostile then they're fair game until you capture them, at which point you're limited to the minimum necessary to guarantee security and then (if applicable) a trial. The GC's quite a bit less strict than the constitution though on the rights of prisoners.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Paragraph two says that if you are from a neutral state.....neutral in this case meaning not a beligerant state......you are not protected by the convention "while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." The US has normal diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Therefore disposition of Saudi citizens would be handled through "normal" diplomatic channels.

I assume that is what is occuring now. When the US detains citizens from these countries their nations are notified and diplomatic discussions take place as to what is/will be done with said individuals.

[Partha]

As for China being the new Russia: No way. Not in the American Psyche and not even in reality. Can you imaging half the goods on the supermarket shelves in the 50's and 60's being "Made in the USSR"? Can you imaging the USSR being the "most favored trading partner"? Can you imaging the USSR holding a quarter of the national debt?

The parallel's not exact, of course (I would figure this goes without saying, but Kulaf/Embarian parsing has infected this board), but China is certainly the new bogeyman of the US consciousness. The difference is now we see our superpower status primarily in economic terms since in military terms it's silly to worry.

[Ddrak]

Paragraph two says that if you are from a neutral state.....neutral in this case meaning not a beligerant state......you are not protected by the convention "while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." The US has normal diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Therefore disposition of Saudi citizens would be handled through "normal" diplomatic channels.

I assume that is what is occuring now. When the US detains citizens from these countries their nations are notified and diplomatic discussions take place as to what is/will be done with said individuals.

Yep - that's what should happen, and I really can't see any sort of agreement that would do any more than that ever happening?

Dd

[Ddrak]

The parallel's not exact, of course (I would figure this goes without saying, but Kulaf/Embarian parsing has infected this board), but China is certainly the new bogeyman of the US consciousness. The difference is now we see our superpower status primarily in economic terms since in military terms it's silly to worry.

That's a hiding to nowhere then - there's very little reason China won't overtake everyone as the world economic superpower within a decade or so. It's already arguable that the EU has equaled the US in economic power in any case.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Very arguable now that Greece is crumbling.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And Spain is on the brink.