Can you post the link to this wiki article? I am really interested in the Ten's of thousands of instances this has happened. I want to see some of the details in some of the cases.
The article is already linked in the post you quote. A quick Google search will reveal more information if you are interested. However, you are unlikely to find any details. The Government releases only very general and non-descriptive statistics.
I am not telling you i think its okay because it only applies to outside the country. I certainly hope you are not trying to insinuate that i do, because it sounds like you may be suggesting that it in your response. Let's be clear, i am very much against this and have spoken out against it here and other places.
No. I don't know what your position on the topic is. I'm merely stating my
That being said, as you know we are a nation of laws whose people, government and military operate with-in those laws. After the events of 9/11 a very gray area formed. US citizens along side terrorists/ combatants fighting and killing US soldiers and citizens. In war, in fire fights, air sorties, etc. you cant have "due process" in the middle of a battle. From what i understand they had to find a way to be able to treat these "combatants" differently or be held responsible for killing them or treating as combatants/POW's without "due process" causing years of ligation and millions and billions of dollars for what basically amounts to traitors.
I don't believe we ought to (or that our Constitution does) shackle our military with legal considerations in the battlefield. If someone is killed in a firefight, so be it. However, if someone is apprehended and under the control of the U.S. Government I believe the Constitution begins to place limits and afford the apprehended person some rights (how many rights depends on whether they are a citizen). I fully realize that this position is not necessarily consistent with legal precedent, but it is my position nevertheless.
Are you contacting them on a daily basis?
I write to them whenever they are contemplating a bill that I believe is flawed or which I feel curtails my liberty. Which is to say fairly frequently.
If the Terrorist groups accomplish anything on 9/11 besides killing 3000+ innocent people they were able to change some of our laws and the way we live. Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and 9/11 opened a whole new spectrum of ways we have become vulnerable to attack, in a sense it opened up a whole new battle field.
Nonsense. We were no more vulnerable on 9/10 than we were on 9/12. We are only marginally less vulnerable today, since cockpit doors are reinforced and passengers will no longer idly stand by and allow a plain to be hijacked. Beyond that, it's mostly security theater that has done little keep us safe and make us less vulnerable, and more and more surveillance.
Its easy to sit here and beat the "drums of Liberty and Freedom" and claim we are becoming a police state.
With people who say things like what you say below, we are going to be well on our way soon...
But the reality is, changes needed to be made to fight on this new battle field, to keep America safe.
I'm afraid I have to call nonsense. This isn't a reality - it's a position that you cannot support with facts; you cannot even provide facts to support the lesser position that the changes we've made so far have helped make us any safer. The sole exception is that cockpit doors are now reinforced (a good thing), something which is completely uncontroversial.
I realize, it sounds silly to say that and seems "Orwellian", but what's the alternative? A practically wide open target like we were before 9/11?
We are as vulnerable today as we were on 9/10, but we are less free and have been spoon-fed this silliness that to ensure our security we need to sacrifice some things and that most of those sacrifices will not affect the average Joe. Which brings us to this part of your reply:
But avxo, going back to our original discussion, these changes, don't affect the average Joe. When we start hearing about Innocent US citizens detained indefinitely outside the US, people will protest and changes will get made. Until then, saying we are turning into a police state is a little premature.
You know, I was never a particularly big Star Trek fan, but a couple of years ago, on a lazy Monday night, I stumbled upon an episode involving some sort of sham legal proceeding against the Captain, who replied: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
" Those are wise words - perhaps too wise for a silly TV show - and you may want to read them again.
I will ask you to read about the case of Brandon Mayfield
and to reconsider not only whether these changes affect the average Joe but to also consider whether that really matters anyways...
National Security Letters have been used since 1978. Unless you are being investigated for suspected terrorist activity, this doesn't affect you. It's certainly not an example of a right you or I have lost since 9/11.
It's certainly true that the NSL statute was on the books long before 9/11. However, the scope and use of National Security Letters dramatically increased in the post 9/11 world - we are talking about tens of thousands of requests per year which compel the production of a wide range of information (from library to medical records). Up until recently the NSLs by the FBI imposed blanket gag orders (unconstitutional prior restrictions on speech) and earlier even prohibited the recipient from contacting a lawyer in connection with the NSL.
You may argue that it's not an example of a right that we have lost since 9/11, but before then the Government could not compel my local library to reveal the list of books I checked out or my doctor to show them my lab results. After 9/11 they can. So I don't think your argument is on very solid footing.
Besides, are you sure that you want to make the argument that "well it's OK if it happened before 9/11" anyways?
I do not agree with holding anyone indefinitely without charges, or without legal counsel, but what Americans are being held indefinitely without charges and without legal counsel?
Jose Padilla was an example; after a long ordeal, he was eventually
transferred out of the brig, and allowed access to counsel and tried in a Court of law, but not before being held incommunicado and forcibly medicated for a while, while the Government claimed that he was not entitled to a lawyer or access to the Courts. It may be easy to simply dismiss his experience because of his goals - goals which I do not support
- but the Constitution doesn't say that only good, honorable, upstanding citizens are afforded the rights reserved to citizens.
I can't think of any other names or specific cases right now. But does that matter? The Government has already asserted that they can do this and isn't that
enough to send a chill down your spine?
Regarding "the assertion that the President can order that Americans be executed, summarily and without any due process," if this is referring to the use of drones to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism, the AG backed off that comment. Again, not an example of any right you have lost since 9/11.
I didn't follow that particular story too closely, but it was my understanding that he backed off on whether this could be done inside the United States and that outside it was a whole 'nother ballgame. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has also been around since 1978. It isn't a "secret court."
I beg to differ: here is a Court before which only the Government appears and whose decisions are not published. If this doesn't qualify as a "secret court" in your book, I don't know what will.
Because a lot of information they review is classified, some of the information is not made a part of the public record. But this isn't some clandestine group of men in black robes holding secret meetings to figure out to invade your privacy.
A clandestine group holding secret meetings is exactly
what they are. You can argue that there may be legitimate reasons to have such a Court. I may even agree with some of them. But that doesn't alter the nature of the beast: a secret court, holding secret meetings.
In fact, appeals can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court from their decisions.
Tell me, how can you appeal a decision that you do not know was made?
The fact we have judicial review of surveillance of activities involving classified information is a good thing.
"Judicial review" is probably a bit too strong. According to an article I read (it may have been on Wikipedia) less than 0.02% of all Government requests are rejected per year. It sounds as if "rubber stamp" is likely a much better term, although without having access to the requests and the decisions, it's hard to be sure one what or the other.
This is not an example of a right you have lost since 9/11.
Only partially true, at best. The fact is that the use of the FISC dramatically increased and its authority has been significantly broadened since 2001.
I haven't followed this alleged "Government invoking the state secrets privilege to kill civil litigation on cases involving renditions and surveillance programs," but do you have examples of rendition being used with American citizens?
It's not alleged
. It's a fact
, which could have trivially verified by typing the names I provided into Google or searching for "extraordinary rendition".
To answer your question, no I do not - but the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that no Americans have been targeted, does that make extraordinary rendition and surveillance programs acceptable, or the use of the State Secrets privilege to prevent a lawsuit proper or even palatable?