Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Another One Bites The Dust

Let's see now.....

American citizen arrested for alledgedly working with terrorists. Held for over a month before anyone is told. No lawyer provided. No charges brought. Just interrogated -- somewhere, by someone, for some purpose, using some method determined by the government as appropriate.

Then the American citizen is transfered from the justice system to the military system for trial. One what? No one knows. No lawyer provided, no charges brought.

Criminal justice system criteria for guilt -- above a reasonable doubt. Military justice system criteria for guilt -- preponderance of the evidence.

Who will be next? For what reason?

It's a new kind of war. Apparently one without rights for American citizens, except those allowed by government officials.

Everything has certainly changed since 9/11. It is not Osama Bin Laden taking away our way of life. It is Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld doing so.

Constitutional rights -- another one bites the dust.

George,

You better watch out. I've heard thru the grapevine that Ashcroft is an avid reader of this forum. You may be next.

Derick

OK, George, I admit you have stubmbled into a worthy question - What do the American people do with a citizen accused of trying to cause grevious harm through a weapon of mass destruction? Especially, when that person is allied with and belongs to a group that has recently commited one of the most cowardly, heinous acts ever propagated on the U.S.

I know what I would have done with him, but what does George think the appropriate response would be?

George wants Padilla to have immediately been provided access to a lawyer (so he could clam up about other terrorist activity he knew about) and to be tried in the traditional criminal justice system.

I haven't found my life impacted in the slightest by the actions of Bush, Ashcroft or Rumsfield.

This is a war. American's lives are at stake. Personally, I would have interrogated him, got everything I could out of him, and then shot him.
GONE, never to be heard from again. Terrorize the terrorists.

Derick

I know what I feel like I would like to do to someone like this, but....

As an American, I believe he should be afforded all rights of any American.

Yes, derrick, he should be given an attorney. He should be charged with a crime, arraigned, bail denied because he is likely a flight risk.

If he has information that can be helpful, through his attorney we can negotiate a plea and sentence with him like we did with Hanson, the FBI spy -- all depending on his coorperation in providing information that we can verify and use. (No doubt he has much information we can use)

Then he should be taken through the criminal justice process like anyone else.

We have done this with men like Hanson and others who have caused grave damage to this country. It has worked well in the past it will do so now and in the future.

In this case, we are dealing with a man who allegedly intended to cause great harm. Why deny him his rights when we do not do so with others who have damaged us even worse than this man would have even if his plot had been successfully acted on?

What we should not be doing is showing the world that we have no real values, only ones we adhere to when it is easy to do so.

We are either the United States of America, with all that means as a beacon of hope around the world, or we are just like every other country who will sell out their values when they are severely tested.

Values only mean something when it is hard to live up to them.

George,

Sorry to say but the US is not seen as a "beacon of hope around the world." Far from it. We have stood by our values time and time again and have saved the world. What have we gotten in appreciation? Zippo. I'm tired of it.

It's our country and we have the right to do anything we want with those who attempt to destroy it. Terrorize the terrorists. Shoot the b*st*rd.

Derick

A short trial and a first class hanging? I don't know. I think George makes some good points here. What was the government's reason for holding this guy so long without charging him with a crime. Maybe thay have a good one but I would be interested in hearing it. Let us take all the steps necessary to protect us from these people but, at the same time, let us not be too eager to embrace a police state. We would look mighty foolish destroying the very thing we are trying to protect. I am not prepared to do like George and assume the worse of our government but neither will I assume the best. I am ever watchful and mindful of the fact that the processes that become common practice today can expand in ways we did not intend and fall into hands that are sure to be different in the future.

Derick

What have we gotten in return? For one thing, perhaps the best most countries can send -- their best and brightest. How much of the creativity and engenuity and intelligence in this country today has come from the immigration we have seen for 150 years. How do you think the US came to be the predominat culture? The predominant scientific community? The predominant business community? The predominant artistic community? It was not because we grew it at home, but because the best and brightest came to us -- because we give them the environment they can flourish in.

Even today, how many countries send their best and brightest children here to be educated, thinking they will come back and they do not return to their homes but decide to stay here and become part of us, making us better?

What have we gotten in return? When I consider the number of democracies when I was a child and the number we have now -- almost all coming because of the vision of the US that the world has -- I see most of the world tryng to emulate our form of government. This is a sign of respect. Even the fact those that are totalitarian goivernments will refer to themselves a democracies and will hold elections is a sign of respect for what we are.

What have we gotten in return? The most massive and richest economy the world has ever seen, and all the benefits we individuals get from that...much of it built because other countries, rich and poor, want to not just emulate our government, but also our music, our clothing, our food, our entertainment.

Abraham Lincoln called America the Last Best Hope on Earth. I agree with this. I believe it to be true -- and pray we do not let ther world down.

I look around the world and see continents and countries torn apart of sectarian violence and cultural differences. Europe can't get past their centuries old hatreds, focused on areas no larger than counties in this country. I see oppression and corruption. I see a rich class and a poor class, and no middle class -- the middle class being the one which provides meaning to the average human being. I see poverty and diseases and governments and business leaders who do not care.

But, in the US, I see problems -- and people trying to solve them. I see cultural differences, and people trying to understand and work through them. I see a governmental system, partisan and nasty as it can be, working generally for the benefit of the people. I see an economy which provides opportunity to most people.

What I see is the one country (there are only a couple of others -- also immigrant based) where differing people with differing views, come together and try (and pretty well succeed more often than not) to work together to the common benefit.

If this world is going to rid itself of the horrendous things that go on, of war, and poverty and disease, it is going to be based on the United States as a model. No, it will not be an exact replica -- but it will be something close to what we have, based on the values we have in some form or another.

We have a lot of problems. But we have met a lot of people's hopes when they have come here and we are working to solve those problems we do have. It is not always pretty. We are not always real good at it. But when we fail, we tend to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and try again.

We are the Last Best Hope of the World. And the world knows it. Government policies may not reflect what the common person believes. But the common person sees the United States, even with all of its flaws, as a beacon of hope.

It is why people like Osama Bin Laden hate us -- because they see those they would have as followers turning to us instead.

And we gain a lot from that. But only if we stay true to ourselves.

JBryan

At what point though, will you know they have stepped over the line? Once you realize it, don't you think it will be so institutionalized that we won't be able to return to what we have had?. Is it not better to keep them from even moving down that path and demand they honor our values now, than assume we can turn things back later? Do you really think we could?

Once before, they arrested 8 people entering the country as saboteurs. This included 2 citizens of the U.S. All were tried by the military and, I think, 6 were executed.

Of course, those were Nazi's, not Islamists, and people still understood that with rights come responsibilities. Abrogating the latter eliminates some of the former.

And we had a declared war, DT. So we knew when the supension of civil liberties would end.

We do not have that now. All we have is an Administration that takes on to itself war-like powers, without telling us when they will give those powers up.

If Il Duce really needs these powers to defend us, then let him seek a declaration of war and let us debate it. Decide as a people if this is what we want to do.

But let us not simply let politicians (and that really is all these people are) decide on their own what rights they will take away and from whom and under what circumstances.

George,

I am not yet prepared to asume that there is anything to be "turned back". I remain watchful. I said you have made some good points. Don't push it.

George,

Stop twisting things and see them for what they really are.

We gave countries an environment to flourish in so they, in return, sent us their best and brightest. Wow, wasn't that kind of them.

Could it be that the best and brightest came here because the US had superior opportunities for them? Better education, more money, etc...?

The US is made up of people from all over the world. But I find your statement indicating that 'we didn't grow it at home', offensive. The US is a young country, yet we have come farther than any other country. Is that because we consulted with all these other countries who were so kind to send us their best and brightest?

Probably, Americans really are a bunch of dumb-clucks. Thanks God for foreigners.

We have given the world democracies. Millions of Americans died to give them their freedom. Yet, even in South Korea, they openly demonstrate against the US. Ask the German goverment for help, no way. Ask the French, sorry.

Sorry George there are not more democracies because other countries are trying to flatter us thru imitation.

You then veer off-course and explain what makes America great by comparing the US to foreign countries.

You are a master magician with words, George. You are obviously very smart and I have great respect for you. But, I do not agree with you.

I said it before and I'll say it again, terrorize the terrorists. There are no rules when dealing with terrorists.

Derick

We have a terrific legal system. Not perfect, but it works, and has worked for several hundred years.

I say use it. Hold a proper trial in the light of day where where the whole world can see it. Cover it in the media - hold it up for everyone to see.

If Padilla is guilty, then prosecute him to the full extent of the law. If he is not, let him go.

It's just that simple.

We in the West have a long tradition of civil liberties and due process that have developed piece by piece over a millenium, going back at least to the time some English barons rammed the Magna Carta down King John's throat and made him sign it. This tradition wasn't the product of some idealists in ivory towers. It's the result of centuries of struggle by practical men and women against real abuses by entrenched power who understood that we all have a right to be secure from the knock on the door in the middle of the night, from a trip to the tower on the whim of the king, from Nacht und Nebel. It's taken us hundreds of years to go from divine right of kings to government by the consent of the governed, and it isn't worth s**t if we don't realize that it has to apply even to those that we hate. Unlike some of you advocates of interrogate 'em and shoot 'em, I've been in the Third World where "justice" is dispensed by disappearances and death squads and massacres by the army were the rule, and it's ugly.

In his 1960 play A Man for All Seasons Robert Bolt gave us the following dialogue. I don't know whether the words given to Sir Thomas More may have actually been his or were created by the playwright, but either way I think they are relevant.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

It is, of course, troubling to hear that an American Citizen was held for a month without access to an attorney or being charged with a crime. As I said before, there could be some very good reasons for this happening. I understand that certain others involved in this plot were only recently detained in Pakistan. It is at least reasonable to suppose that law enforcement and intelligence officials did not want it known by these other operatives that Padilla was in custody until they had been rounded up. It is even possible that the cooperation of Mr. Padilla had been obtained in the pursuit of these other operatives. There is also the question of the intelligence assets used in uncovering this plot. There would have to have been an effort to ensure the security of those who provided the intelligence used and even a little more time given to obtain all intelligence possible.

We should all be concerned that these methods are being used but mindful of the fact that in unusual circumstances they must be used. George is very quick to point out that war has not been declared blithely ignoring the fact that there is no one (state) to declare war against. Indeed, in the present day circumstances, a declaration of war may be an anachronism. However, that does not absolve the government of the responsibility of clearly defining the conditions that make this a war and ensuring that such extraordinary measures will not continue once the present emergency has passed. We would also be wary of any effort at replacing it with a fresh "emergency".

Mr. Padilla should be given a fair trial as soon as possible. The fact that he has been held without the benefit of counsel means that any information obtained from him during this period of incarceration will be inadmissable at his trial. The fact that he may be tried in a military court is not without precedent. We may not have declared war (for reasons stated above) but Mr. Padilla stands accused of what could quite arguably described as an act of war.

It is interesting that even now as the FBI is being excoriated for not pursuing certain individuals enrolled in flight schools for fear of being portrayed as infringing on the rights of others are now being excoriated for doing just that. It seems there is no pleasing some people. It is also curious that many of those who were untroubled by the abduction at gunpoint of a six year old boy in the middle of the night by law enforcement are now warning that Constitutional rights are "biting the dust". It all seems rather, well, convenient.

I remain, as I said, watchful.

Niles,

Padilla is an enemy combatant. All that was needed was his confession, witnessed by two individuals, to place him in this category. Enemy combatants and non-citizens do not have civil rights. Consequently, everything being done is legal.

Seems to me the long tradition of civil liberties and due process originated in the east, not the west.

Derick

Perhaps one of the best plays to deal with individual conscience and the fight of the individual against government supression.

One I wish was taught AND discussed in any ethics class.

And where does it say we must have a state to declare war against?

Why can't we declare war against a group instead of a state?

It can be done. Nothing is stopping us.

If it is a new kind of war, then a new kind of declaration of war can be done. Different to declare it against a group instead of a state with territory, but we are supposedly fighting in a different way as well.

We do not have a declared war. Il Duce should not be taking to himself the powers of a wartime President.

War has been declared against us. That should be enough. We could declare war against "AL Quaeda" but what is to stop them from changing their name to "Death to America".