Sunday, January 07, 2007
New York Times Leads the Charge for Terrorist Civil Rights
Although this unsigned editorial in today's Sunday NYT says it's about the civil rights of Americans, it clearly is more concerned with the civil rights of illegal combatants in the Jihadi war currently being waged against us. It is also a repository for legal ignorance so broad and pervasive as to overwhelm my poor ability to refute it. Besides, no one reads my full fiskings of these long op-eds so I'll concentrate on the single issue of championing civil rights for the very foreigners who are trying to kill us.
Example one:
[The administration] intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush's inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns.
Illegal foreign combatants (like spies and saboteurs) do not have constitutional rights; they do not have Geneva like rights (our Supreme Court's idiocy there in Hamden v. Rumsfeld notwithstanding); they are like pirates--you can execute them upon establishing they are indeed pirates. They don't get to go to court--a military tribunal or commission is just fine. Has no one at the NYT read Ex Parte Quirin ?
Example two:
[The presidential signing statement regarding U.S. mail] said the administration had the right to "conduct searches in exigent circumstances," which include not only protecting lives, but also unspecified "foreign intelligence collection."
Has no one at the NYT read the thousands of cases which establish again and again exceptions to the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches (sometimes defined as searches without warrants) for exigent circumstances particularly in cases involving foreign intelligence collection? It seems the NYT is deliberately ignorant here--I mean you have to be a real legal moron not to know that exigent circumstances have nearly always negated the need for a warrant.
Example three:
But then again, the law is also clear on the need to obtain a warrant before intercepting Americans' telephone calls and e-mail. Mr. Bush began openly defying that law after Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on calls and e-mail between the United States and other countries.
This is really old news and a perseverance in ignorance that continues to stun me. Has no one at the NYT read In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001? The quote is also poorly stated--the calls apparently originate from or go to known or suspected foreign terrorists and involve a person who is located in the United States but whose citizenship status is almost entirely unknown. The calls could well be between a foreign illegal combatant here in the United States and one in Pakistan. Again, however, the NYT supports giving 4th Amendment rights to foreign illegal combatants.
Example four:
News accounts have also reminded us of the shameful state of American military prisons, where supposed terrorist suspects are kept without respect for civil or human rights, and on the basis of evidence so deeply tainted by abuse, hearsay or secrecy that it is essentially worthless.
This is a daily double call for American civil rights for foreign illegal combatants--civil rights for captured illegal combatants and court trials for each of them. But the Supreme Court said the military run hearings to establish the status of the illegal combatants were fine in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Shouldn't the NYT be criticizing the Imperial Supreme Court?
Example five:
Binyam Mohamed [who is now] 28, he is still being held there as an "illegal enemy combatant" under the anti-constitutional military tribunals act that was rushed through the Republican-controlled Congress just before last November's elections.
See above about the constitutionality of military tribunals regrading the status of illegal combatants. And of course the Congress passed the bill then because the Supreme Court 'majority' in Hamden called for it. Is the Congress now Imperial because it established military tribunals for deciding the criminality of the captured illegal combatants' actions? Did the NAZIs at Nuremburg get a federal court trial? Did Tojo? No, of course not--those war crime 'trials' were conducted by international military tribunals. According to the NYT, the Congress was Imperial and unconstitutional only when it was Republican controlled. No bias there, nothing to see, move along, please.
Final Example:
The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush's rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch.
Fixing the so called 'profound flaws in the military tribunals act' equals giving more rights to our Jihadi enemies who obey no law at all.
Restoring the rule of law over intelligence equals giving more constitutional rights (particular 4th Amendment rights) to the Jihadis.
Restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive to the NYT means allowing the Congress to shackle the Commander in Chief with unwise, unnecessary and unconstitutional laws. To us center right guys and gals, it would mean the opposite--taking away the ability of Congress to impede the Commander in Chief in any way except those in the Constitution (declaring war, funding, rules regarding the military, etc.).
I know it's a a harsh statement, but the NYT has here crossed the line between ordinary pig ignorance and gone into actively helping our enemies. The war being waged against us now will be a long, tough war and we can't afford to fight it with one arm tied behind our back because we might then lose it. Of course the prospect of losing has apparently no negative resonance with the NYT; being preceived as nice to our enemies seems the greatest good to the NTY. The editors are contemptible.
Example one:
[The administration] intended to keep stonewalling Congressional inquiries into Mr. Bush's inhumane and unconstitutional treatment of prisoners taken in anti-terrorist campaigns.
Illegal foreign combatants (like spies and saboteurs) do not have constitutional rights; they do not have Geneva like rights (our Supreme Court's idiocy there in Hamden v. Rumsfeld notwithstanding); they are like pirates--you can execute them upon establishing they are indeed pirates. They don't get to go to court--a military tribunal or commission is just fine. Has no one at the NYT read Ex Parte Quirin ?
Example two:
[The presidential signing statement regarding U.S. mail] said the administration had the right to "conduct searches in exigent circumstances," which include not only protecting lives, but also unspecified "foreign intelligence collection."
Has no one at the NYT read the thousands of cases which establish again and again exceptions to the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches (sometimes defined as searches without warrants) for exigent circumstances particularly in cases involving foreign intelligence collection? It seems the NYT is deliberately ignorant here--I mean you have to be a real legal moron not to know that exigent circumstances have nearly always negated the need for a warrant.
Example three:
But then again, the law is also clear on the need to obtain a warrant before intercepting Americans' telephone calls and e-mail. Mr. Bush began openly defying that law after Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on calls and e-mail between the United States and other countries.
This is really old news and a perseverance in ignorance that continues to stun me. Has no one at the NYT read In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001? The quote is also poorly stated--the calls apparently originate from or go to known or suspected foreign terrorists and involve a person who is located in the United States but whose citizenship status is almost entirely unknown. The calls could well be between a foreign illegal combatant here in the United States and one in Pakistan. Again, however, the NYT supports giving 4th Amendment rights to foreign illegal combatants.
Example four:
News accounts have also reminded us of the shameful state of American military prisons, where supposed terrorist suspects are kept without respect for civil or human rights, and on the basis of evidence so deeply tainted by abuse, hearsay or secrecy that it is essentially worthless.
This is a daily double call for American civil rights for foreign illegal combatants--civil rights for captured illegal combatants and court trials for each of them. But the Supreme Court said the military run hearings to establish the status of the illegal combatants were fine in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Shouldn't the NYT be criticizing the Imperial Supreme Court?
Example five:
Binyam Mohamed [who is now] 28, he is still being held there as an "illegal enemy combatant" under the anti-constitutional military tribunals act that was rushed through the Republican-controlled Congress just before last November's elections.
See above about the constitutionality of military tribunals regrading the status of illegal combatants. And of course the Congress passed the bill then because the Supreme Court 'majority' in Hamden called for it. Is the Congress now Imperial because it established military tribunals for deciding the criminality of the captured illegal combatants' actions? Did the NAZIs at Nuremburg get a federal court trial? Did Tojo? No, of course not--those war crime 'trials' were conducted by international military tribunals. According to the NYT, the Congress was Imperial and unconstitutional only when it was Republican controlled. No bias there, nothing to see, move along, please.
Final Example:
The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush's rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch.
Fixing the so called 'profound flaws in the military tribunals act' equals giving more rights to our Jihadi enemies who obey no law at all.
Restoring the rule of law over intelligence equals giving more constitutional rights (particular 4th Amendment rights) to the Jihadis.
Restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive to the NYT means allowing the Congress to shackle the Commander in Chief with unwise, unnecessary and unconstitutional laws. To us center right guys and gals, it would mean the opposite--taking away the ability of Congress to impede the Commander in Chief in any way except those in the Constitution (declaring war, funding, rules regarding the military, etc.).
I know it's a a harsh statement, but the NYT has here crossed the line between ordinary pig ignorance and gone into actively helping our enemies. The war being waged against us now will be a long, tough war and we can't afford to fight it with one arm tied behind our back because we might then lose it. Of course the prospect of losing has apparently no negative resonance with the NYT; being preceived as nice to our enemies seems the greatest good to the NTY. The editors are contemptible.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 9:06 AM 
