Dr. Dawg
"...9/11 did provide the opportunity to enact a host of neo-con measures, from the suspension of habeus corpus to heavy domestic surveillance, from secret prisons and torture to the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. "
And what did Bill Clinton do/accuse the right of doing after OKC? Bush-lite?
"neo-con measures"
One wonders: Is Johnny Baglow showing us some tongue-in-cheek, or merely an appalling display of ignorance?
Never mind.
"And what did Bill Clinton do/accuse the right of doing after OKC? Bush-lite?"
Why, he immediately began extreme renditions of conservatives. He took them off the street, and put them in front of military commissions, where they faced a secret trial and evidence only the judge and prosecution had visibility to.
It was a holocaust of conservatives, gun enthusiasts, pro-life activists, and church's who try to cure homosexuality.
As with "fascist", the word "neo-con" has become divorced from its original meaning and now serves as a label signifying the writers disapproval. It is rich, though, that an old-line Leftist like Baglow is making wild accusation about such things as the "suspension of habeus corpus" in the U.S. You'd almost think we'd become Cuba, or East Germany, or *gasp* Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher.
Oh well, gotta go before the Stasi trace may keyboard.
"Wild accusation," eh?
[External Link]
Comforting to know that the President can declare anyone an "unlawful combatant," and there is no right of appeal.
Incidentally, "old-line Leftist" has become divorced from its original meaning, yadda yadda...
You can't "suspend" what never was. POWs have no pre-existing right to habeus corpus except as provided for by treaty or statute.
Posted at 2008-03-19 10:32:35 [PermaLink]Further, people captured in a battlefield area,armed but not in uniform, are not POWs, but unlawful combatants, under the Geneva Conventions concerning Prisoners of War.
Dr.D: I don't think S3930 does what you claim.
Exactly what section and provision do you refer to, that lets the President unilaterally "declare" an arbitrary person (especially a citizen, residing in the United States, and not having borne arms in a field of combat, out of uniform) to be an unlawful combatant?
"...a host of neo-con measures, from the suspension of habeus corpus to heavy domestic surveillance, from secret prisons and torture to the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq."
Neo-con measures? Trudeau, Saddam & Castro were neo-cons?
And we all know that wars are typical neo-con measures. Especially in Afghanistan & Iraq.... wasn't Alexander the Great the very first neo-con?
Hey this is fun, let's see what else is a typical neo-con measure.
Conscription must be. Identity proof at borders (how dare they?). Imperialism is an obvious one. The spread of AIDS (ooohhh yeah, good one). Internet cencorship, organ harvesting, vote rigging, and train derailments are surely neo-con in origin. Used car dealerships... check. Toupees... check. Famine, hurricanes, droughts, floods, tsunamis.... check, check, check, check and check. Most religions are neo-con. The Green Party (Neo-cons have all the bases covered).
That's about it, I think. What else is there, besides porn? But that's more of a neo-liberal thing.
Bruce and Sigivald,
I'm not even talking about POWs. S3930 allows an American citizen to have his or her habeas corpus rights suspended.
"On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an "'unlawful enemy combatant' engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States" by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51. President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any resident, citizen or non-citizen, of the USA.
"On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales asserted in Senate testimony that while habeas corpus is "one of our most cherished rights," the United States Constitution does not expressly guarantee habeas rights to United States residents or citizens.
"As such, the law could be extended to U.S. citizens and held if left unchecked."
[External Link]
A bill presently under consideration is the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act:
[External Link]
Hmm. "Restoration," eh? Sounds like something got suspended, all right.
"POWs have no pre-existing right to habeus corpus except as provided for by treaty or statute."
But the US position is that the people taken in Afghanistan are not POWs, but unlawful combatants, which, sorry to disappoint, does not appear in the Geneva conventions.
Hmmm, let's see what the conventions say: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."
Now, to be fair to the freedom loving, democracy defending conservatives, this sort of thing is not a "neocon measure". As bad as extreme rendition, secret trials and torture are, they are not a neocon innovation, nor is the American implementation of them as bad as some countries (see the French-Algerian for some real interesting ideas on how to fight terrorists).
I guess someone forgot to tell the ICRC. "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants... Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime." [External Link]
Posted at 2008-03-19 13:10:34 [PermaLink]Dr Dawg's grad students have rather scary "intellects".
Mark
Ottawa
Yeah, right. Incidentally, "neo-con" has become divorced from its original meaning, yadda yadda... Perhaps not so much divorced as kidnapped and tortured.
"Suspension of [habeas] corpus to heavy domestic surveillance, from secret prisons and torture to the war in Afghanistan and the invasion..." Hell, yeah... sounds just like a socialist er, "progressive" tyranny. Cuba comes to mind. The Soviets. China. Name one worker's paradise that doesn't operate so.
"To the extent that persons designated "enemy combatants" have been captured in international or non-international armed conflict, the provisions and protections of international humanitarian law remain applicable regardless of how such persons are called. "
In other words, Dear Leader in the US can invent whatever construct he likes to describe people they pick up in war zones, he still doesn't get to waterboard them.
"Hell, yeah... sounds just like a socialist er, "progressive" tyranny. Cuba comes to mind. The Soviets. China. Name one worker's paradise that doesn't operate so."
Could you clarify that statement? Are you agreeing with us, that warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons and suspension of habeas corpus is a bad thing? Or are you saying that the US should become like Cuba and do more of it? Please clarify...
Self Loather... Your question makes false assumptions throughout, so where does one begin?
BTW, I'm concerned that a twit who can't spell 'habeas corpus' [let alone understand it] has students of any sort.
Mark:
Just for the record, while I do some undergraduate teaching, I'm actually attending the grad seminar as a student. These were colleagues of mine, not charges. Somehow that doesn't make things any better.
"Your question makes false assumptions throughout, so where does one begin? "
You can begin wherever you like. We made comments about Human Rights Violations in the United States. You responded by saying that our description sounded like a Workers State. Therefore, you either support the human rights violations in a workers state, and wish for the US to behave more like them, or that all of the states that have secret trials, suspension of habaes corpus, renditions, are bad and should be stopped. Although I agree with the latter, and not the former, both are consistent with respect to having equivalent standards of morality for enemies and friends alike.
Surely you agree, that if it is wrong for one country to violate human rights, than it is wrong for all countries, regardless of the magnitude of that violation? Anything other than that would be stalinism.
"Surely you agree, that if it is wrong for one country to violate human rights, than it is wrong for all countries, regardless of the magnitude of that violation? Anything other than that would be stalinism."
Self-Deceiving Moral Relativist, the scale of human rights violations in totalitarian regimes versus those committed by the U.S. government is the pertinent comparison. In the case of the United States Government, human rights violations are the exception, not the rule. In some instances, the perpetrators committed acts that were not sanctioned by the administration. They were charged criminally, and convicted.
In totalitarian regimes like Cuba, North Korea, Burma, etc, egregious human rights violations are the rule, and the hands-on perpetrators acting at the behest of the state are expected to carry out these violations.
The transgressions you accuse the Bush Administration of committing are the result of good faith intent to protect the U.S. from further acts of terrorism. Some of these transgressions have been ill-advised and wrong, but the intent was not. On the other hand, in the case of totalitarian states, the intent is to terrorize and control the population, in the name of ideology, or the enrichment of the controlling elite.
Big difference.
I'm sure the Cubans, North Koreans,and Burmese who are currently on the receiving end of state persecution would jump at the opportunity to take their chances in the United States.
"Self-Deceiving Moral Relativist" Oh Mike H, it's good to see you have your sense of humour. That you haven't taken our battles in the blogosphere too seriously.
"The transgressions you accuse the Bush Administration of committing are the result of good faith intent to protect the U.S. from further acts of terrorism."
So as long as a country commits human rights violations in "good faith", then they are excusable? At what point are they inexcusable? Can you suggest a criteria by which, a person's human rights violations could be dismissed on the grounds of "good faith" and when they should be prosecuted?
"In some instances, the perpetrators committed acts that were not sanctioned by the administration. They were charged criminally, and convicted. "
Yes they were. In Italy...
[External Link]
"I'm sure the Cubans, North Koreans,and Burmese who are currently on the receiving end of state persecution would jump at the opportunity to take their chances in the United States."
So, you are saying that North Korea and Cuba ought to be the standards by which we measure human rights...
Your call...
"Oh Mike H, it's good to see you have your sense of humour. That you haven't taken our battles in the blogosphere too seriously."
How could I possibly take a fop like you seriously?
"So as long as a country commits human rights violations in "good faith", then they are excusable?"
In many cases, when committed by democracies in exigent circumstances, yes, they are excusable. Criminal justice systems in western democracies are similarly fallible, and similarly forgivable, when good faith prosecutions convict innocent people. The only way to ensure no innocents are ever convicted of crimes, or terrorism, is to prosecute no one. Obviously, the need to protect society, whether against criminal activity or international terrorism, supersedes the injustice resulting from the inevitable wrongful convictions that must follow when human frailties interact with a legal system.
"At what point are they inexcusable? Can you suggest a criteria by which, a person's human rights violations could be dismissed on the grounds of "good faith" and when they should be prosecuted? "
You've answered your own question. Good faith is the test, when determining whether the state acted in a morally defensible fashion. That doesn't mean that a "dismissal of rights" is the end result for an individual whose rights have been established to have been violated. These people are entitled to meaningful financial compensation that accompanies an acknowledgment that their rights have been violated. Maher Arar is an example where compensation has been paid, as are individuals wrongfully imprisoned for criminal convictions, like David Milgaard and Donald Marshall.
"Yes they were. In Italy..."
And so have they in the United States. The Abu Ghraib case, to name one.
"So, you are saying that North Korea and Cuba ought to be the standards by which we measure human rights...
Your call..."
What I am saying is that there is no equivalence between the scale of human rights violations committed by the United States Government, when compared to nations such as North Korea and Cuba. Nor is there any equivalence when it comes to intent. You seek to create equivalence, because you're an America-hating Leftist, and that equivalence can only be achieved by conflating the water boarding of a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with the North Korean state's execution of people who sneak into China trying to find food.
You might be fucked up enough to convince yourself of that, but don't bother trying it on me.