5.8.05

US Judge rebuts need for increased security against terrorists

He effectively rebuts Richard B for me in the argument we've been having regarding the need for torture.
Posted by at

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I recall, Ahmed Ressam was arrested crossing the border near Vancouver in December 1999 with a trunk full of explosives, which, he later revealed were meant to be used at the Los Angeles Airport in a terrorist attack.

He was immediately arrested, but not charged, and a long period of questioning ensued. As long as Ahmed continued answering questions about what he knew about Muslim terrorists, he wasn't charged. But he certainly wasn't free.

Mr. Ressam proved to be an invaluable source of information. How valuable? He was finally charged and tried in June/July 2005. He announced he was tired of answering questions, and was no longer certain of what he had said previously. I'd take this as an indication of him being subjected to... "intense" methods of questioning. Also as a sign that the information Ressam was able to provide a half-decade later was still valuable.

So since December 1999, to June 2005--five and a half years--the United States government detained, without charging, a foreign citizen, and tortured him.

So... Amendment 5 of the bill of rights guarantees that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Amendment 6 reads "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State"

Amendment 7 reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Amendment 11 reads "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

And the final qualifier, article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 reads: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So... was Ahmed Ressam afforded all the benefits of the United States when, as a foreign citizen (Amend. 11) he was held to answer for an infamous crime without being indicted before a grand jury (Amend 5), subjected to unusual punishment and denied bail (Amend 7) and did not see a jury for more than half a decade (Amend. 6)?

Why yes... he was, because his right to habeas corpus is waived in the case of war or rebellion, and all those other rights go out the door.

So the real question is, is the United States in a case of "Rebellion or Invasion [as] the public Safety may require it."

If yes, then the judge is arguing my case. The constitution functions, and torture, while unpleasant, is a legitimate way for a state to defend itself in trying circumstances.

If no, then the judge cannot be construed as making your case, because clearly the constitution and the civil liberties it explicitly provides citizens for was ignored in the case of Mr. Ressam.

Well... you tell me.

Regards,

Richard.

10:24
Cameron said...

Whether I like it or not, agree with it or not, the US has declared that they are at war with terrorism, both at home and abroad and are going to continue to trim back their rights at home and elsewhere using the Patriot Act, prosecuting the war in Iraq etc.

So the methods of his detainment, interrogation, etc. would be considered perfectly legal despite my objections. Keep in mind that I do not think him innocent, nor believe he is meriting less than a life time confinement somewhere unpleasant. I just don't want him to die because he's being kicked in the ribs and rifle butted in the face while wrapped in a sleeping bag, or suffer depraved humiliation involving sodomy, rape, and torture, etc.

That isn't interrogating him, it's sadism, and there is a difference.

But you make a solid point. The judges rhetoric while appearing to mouth liberal platitudes, is actually discordant compared to the facts as you present them. Indeed, they are Orwellian.

So it is in the end, a Reagan appointed judge using Liberal rhetoric to describe what is essentially a conservative result.

19:45

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)