By "war," is the author referring to a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war, or is he referring to any resolution that lets the president unilaterally decide whether or not to invade a foreign country? By "unlawful combatant," is he referring to actual terrorists who were caught in the act of unprovoked violence against civilians, or is he referring to anyone who might be defending their homeland against an invading foreign military?
"By 'war,' is the author referring to a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war, or is he referring to any resolution that lets the president unilaterally decide whether or not to invade a foreign country?"
Inasmuch as the Constitutional war powers clause contains no formula for how Congress is supposed to declare war, it's unclear on what textual basis you ground your contrast.
"By 'unlawful combatant,' is he referring to actual terrorists who were caught in the act of unprovoked violence against civilians, or is he referring to anyone who might be defending their homeland against an invading foreign military?"
Are you saying that after 9/11, the Taliban were simply defending their homeland against US troops? Are you saying the US didn't have a basis for just reprisal against Afghanistan?
Are you saying that unless we caught bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. in the act of attacking US civilians, they were merely defending their homeland against American troops? Or did you have a different example in mind?
I am merely saying that the whole torture debate is pointless without a clear definition of terms - unless, of course, we don't have a problem with rounding up anyone who "fits the description," throwing them into indefinite detention without due process, and torturing them for information they may or may not have. I have always been rather skeptical of those in government, and it's difficult for me to just accept the government's word that the only people who are being tortured are proven terrorists. It's easy for them to hide behind words like "war" or "national security" as a justification for everything they do, from domestic surveillance to the assassination of American citizens.
Problem with a clear definition of "torture" is that covers such a broad range of actions. And there's no consensus on what to include or exclude.
Due process for whom? Are you saying bin Laden (to take one example) is entitled to the same due process rights as an American citizen? Is he part of our social contract (i.e. the US Constitution)? Is he entitled to the same due process rights as an American soldier under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? What's the historical basis for your claims?
Why do you think we depend on the government's word that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a proven terrorist? Is that really our only source of information?
You seem to be using this as a pretext to inveigh against everything you disapprove of regarding American counterterrorism. But that's changing the subject.
You originally framed the issue in terms of what's Constitutional vis-a-vis declaring war. Well, the Congressional war resolution declared war on a terrorist organization and its affiliates, rather than declaring war on a particular nation. Now, you may think that's overly broad. You may think that invites mission creep.
But how is that unconstitutional? Where does the war powers clause indicate that Congress does not have the authority to declare war on a terrorist organization? How is that essentially different than declaring war on the Barbary pirates during the Jefferson administration?
If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates? Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints.
The problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't. Unless we catch someone in the act, or unless someone claims responsibility, it's all speculation. Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state.
"If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates?"
Wouldn't his actions have arguably made him treasonous?
"Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints."
Actually, there have been a lot of complaints. But as far as that goes, aren't these "American citizens" taking up arms against the US by joining with jihadi forces?
"The problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't. Unless we catch someone in the act, or unless someone claims responsibility, it's all speculation."
Not sure if you've been following the news in recent years, but we have "caught some people in the act". Not to mention some have proudly "claimed responsibility" by admitting to fighting against the US and/or other Western nations.
"Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state."
That seems to be a caricature of the position espoused here.
"If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates? Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints. The problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't."
i) You keep moving the goalpost. You originally raised a Constitutional issue. The first words of the Constitution are "We the people of the United States." Does that cover bin Laden? Is he a person of the US?
It goes on to say: "provide for the common defense." Does that mean protecting bin Laden by granting him full due process rights, or does that mean protecting the people of the US from foreign enemies like bin Laden?
ii) You think we have no way of determining if bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Farrah Aidid,Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Khaled Mashal et al. are terrorists?
You seem to be proposing that we treat everybody alike. That we confer full due process rights and Geneva Conventions on everyone, regardless of who those documents were actually intended to include or exclude. How is your approach any different from how liberal SCOTUS justices flout original intent by inventing rights that don't exist in the text or legislative intent?
"Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state."
You're rehashing objections I already raised in my "High-value terrorist" post.
By "war," is the author referring to a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war, or is he referring to any resolution that lets the president unilaterally decide whether or not to invade a foreign country? By "unlawful combatant," is he referring to actual terrorists who were caught in the act of unprovoked violence against civilians, or is he referring to anyone who might be defending their homeland against an invading foreign military?
ReplyDelete"By 'war,' is the author referring to a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war, or is he referring to any resolution that lets the president unilaterally decide whether or not to invade a foreign country?"
DeleteInasmuch as the Constitutional war powers clause contains no formula for how Congress is supposed to declare war, it's unclear on what textual basis you ground your contrast.
"By 'unlawful combatant,' is he referring to actual terrorists who were caught in the act of unprovoked violence against civilians, or is he referring to anyone who might be defending their homeland against an invading foreign military?"
Are you saying that after 9/11, the Taliban were simply defending their homeland against US troops? Are you saying the US didn't have a basis for just reprisal against Afghanistan?
Are you saying that unless we caught bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. in the act of attacking US civilians, they were merely defending their homeland against American troops? Or did you have a different example in mind?
I am merely saying that the whole torture debate is pointless without a clear definition of terms - unless, of course, we don't have a problem with rounding up anyone who "fits the description," throwing them into indefinite detention without due process, and torturing them for information they may or may not have. I have always been rather skeptical of those in government, and it's difficult for me to just accept the government's word that the only people who are being tortured are proven terrorists. It's easy for them to hide behind words like "war" or "national security" as a justification for everything they do, from domestic surveillance to the assassination of American citizens.
ReplyDeleteA "clear definition" of which terms? "Torture"
DeleteProblem with a clear definition of "torture" is that covers such a broad range of actions. And there's no consensus on what to include or exclude.
Due process for whom? Are you saying bin Laden (to take one example) is entitled to the same due process rights as an American citizen? Is he part of our social contract (i.e. the US Constitution)? Is he entitled to the same due process rights as an American soldier under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? What's the historical basis for your claims?
Why do you think we depend on the government's word that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a proven terrorist? Is that really our only source of information?
You seem to be using this as a pretext to inveigh against everything you disapprove of regarding American counterterrorism. But that's changing the subject.
You originally framed the issue in terms of what's Constitutional vis-a-vis declaring war. Well, the Congressional war resolution declared war on a terrorist organization and its affiliates, rather than declaring war on a particular nation. Now, you may think that's overly broad. You may think that invites mission creep.
But how is that unconstitutional? Where does the war powers clause indicate that Congress does not have the authority to declare war on a terrorist organization? How is that essentially different than declaring war on the Barbary pirates during the Jefferson administration?
If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates? Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints.
DeleteThe problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't. Unless we catch someone in the act, or unless someone claims responsibility, it's all speculation. Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state.
@Lee Shelton
Delete"If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates?"
Wouldn't his actions have arguably made him treasonous?
"Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints."
Actually, there have been a lot of complaints. But as far as that goes, aren't these "American citizens" taking up arms against the US by joining with jihadi forces?
"The problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't. Unless we catch someone in the act, or unless someone claims responsibility, it's all speculation."
Not sure if you've been following the news in recent years, but we have "caught some people in the act". Not to mention some have proudly "claimed responsibility" by admitting to fighting against the US and/or other Western nations.
"Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state."
That seems to be a caricature of the position espoused here.
"If Osama bin Laden were an American citizen, would that really make a difference in the mind of torture advocates? Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints. The problem with denying due process is that we have no way of determining who is a terrorist and who isn't."
Deletei) You keep moving the goalpost. You originally raised a Constitutional issue. The first words of the Constitution are "We the people of the United States." Does that cover bin Laden? Is he a person of the US?
It goes on to say: "provide for the common defense." Does that mean protecting bin Laden by granting him full due process rights, or does that mean protecting the people of the US from foreign enemies like bin Laden?
ii) You think we have no way of determining if bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Farrah Aidid,Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Khaled Mashal et al. are terrorists?
You seem to be proposing that we treat everybody alike. That we confer full due process rights and Geneva Conventions on everyone, regardless of who those documents were actually intended to include or exclude. How is your approach any different from how liberal SCOTUS justices flout original intent by inventing rights that don't exist in the text or legislative intent?
"Rounding up a bunch of men in the desert, shipping them off to a prison halfway around the world, and torturing confessions out of them doesn't exactly boost my faith in the state."
You're rehashing objections I already raised in my "High-value terrorist" post.
Lee Shelton
Delete"Our president has already assassinated American citizens without due process, and there haven't been very many complaints."
On the one hand, here are three complaints from a very hawkish outlet:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/342564/print
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/248807/print
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/278794/print
On the other hand, here's a defense, from a former Marine and JAG who now defends Christian civil liberties for the ACLJ:
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/248413/print
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/278817/print
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/340008/print