Christ, I'm tired.
Jun. 21st, 2002 05:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
camwynThere are days when I wish to God I didn't have to write stuff like this. I almost just went to the gym today and left this to other folks. Then I figured... yanno, I wrote about that damn Ohio State commencement incident... this bugger's more important.
I realize I bothered you a few days ago with an email regarding the recent incidents at Ohio State University's commencement. I also realize that you are probably swamped right now. That's why I hate to write to you about this. . . to use the vernacular phrase, it's just One Damn Thing After Another.
Only this time, what happened isn't merely quasi-fascistic - it genuinely *is* something out of a fascist state. Or worse.
You can thank the Washington Post for this information reaching the public, or possibly the New York Daily news - I saw it in news stories published by both papers. The recent appeal filed by the Justice Department in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the American-born man we captured along with Taliban fighters, has successfully managed to frighten the living daylights out of me. Specifically, the phrasing used by the Justice Department. I realise it was meant as a reference to a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, but can you honestly look at this statement and not feel fear for the republic?
"There is no right under the laws and customs of war for an enemy combatant to meet with counsel concerning his detention, much less to meet with counsel in private, without military authorities present... The court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination."
I realise that the laws and customs of war create a situation entirely different from that seen in Miranda v. Arizona. I'm not worried about that part. War is different from civil arrest. It's that bit at the end that worries me, sir. What it's essentially saying is that if the military decides that someone is an enemy combatant, whether they have ever picked up a gun or not, then that's the end of their rights. The military is permitted to sweep in, detain them, and keep them away from any protection whatsoever remaining to them under the American justice system. Pretty convenient, isn't it, sir? It works well when you're trying to nail down terrorists that you *know* are terrorists. Then I bet it works pretty well when you're trying to nail down suspected terrorists. Then the military, or the Commander in Chief, might decide that certain organizations automatically constitute enemy combatant groups, and then that the act of, say, turning your back on the President constitutes a sign of membership in one of these groups - and next thing you know American citizens are being frogmarched off to military detainment, but they don't get to contact an attorney, because the court isn't allowed to second-guess their combatant status.
This doesn't sit well with me, sir, it doesn't sit well with me at all. I hope it troubles you in the same way that it troubles me - and that you can help, somehow, in determining how best to curtail the potential for disaster inherent in such an attitude on the part of any branch of the American government. Treatment of prisoners of war is one thing. Determining who is a prisoner of war is another. And deciding that in a time when no war is declared by Congress, persons born in the United States constitute combatants and automatically forfeit all right to representation, justice, or legal counsel, is practically Dred Scott *and* the Alien and Sedition Acts combined.
I hope you can do something about this.
Thank you for your time and trouble
Sincerely,
(my name and address)
It's gotten to the point where I look at a news issue and ask myself, "Could I write to my pen pal in China and not feel ashamed of barking at his government through Amnesty International if I fail to bark at my own government about the very same thing?". And then I get ashamed that I have to do the barking at all.
Goddammit.
Today's pulp survival tip is #184. Make no assumptions about the true gender of anyone who you haven't seen completely naked.
I realize I bothered you a few days ago with an email regarding the recent incidents at Ohio State University's commencement. I also realize that you are probably swamped right now. That's why I hate to write to you about this. . . to use the vernacular phrase, it's just One Damn Thing After Another.
Only this time, what happened isn't merely quasi-fascistic - it genuinely *is* something out of a fascist state. Or worse.
You can thank the Washington Post for this information reaching the public, or possibly the New York Daily news - I saw it in news stories published by both papers. The recent appeal filed by the Justice Department in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the American-born man we captured along with Taliban fighters, has successfully managed to frighten the living daylights out of me. Specifically, the phrasing used by the Justice Department. I realise it was meant as a reference to a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, but can you honestly look at this statement and not feel fear for the republic?
"There is no right under the laws and customs of war for an enemy combatant to meet with counsel concerning his detention, much less to meet with counsel in private, without military authorities present... The court may not second-guess the military's enemy combatant determination."
I realise that the laws and customs of war create a situation entirely different from that seen in Miranda v. Arizona. I'm not worried about that part. War is different from civil arrest. It's that bit at the end that worries me, sir. What it's essentially saying is that if the military decides that someone is an enemy combatant, whether they have ever picked up a gun or not, then that's the end of their rights. The military is permitted to sweep in, detain them, and keep them away from any protection whatsoever remaining to them under the American justice system. Pretty convenient, isn't it, sir? It works well when you're trying to nail down terrorists that you *know* are terrorists. Then I bet it works pretty well when you're trying to nail down suspected terrorists. Then the military, or the Commander in Chief, might decide that certain organizations automatically constitute enemy combatant groups, and then that the act of, say, turning your back on the President constitutes a sign of membership in one of these groups - and next thing you know American citizens are being frogmarched off to military detainment, but they don't get to contact an attorney, because the court isn't allowed to second-guess their combatant status.
This doesn't sit well with me, sir, it doesn't sit well with me at all. I hope it troubles you in the same way that it troubles me - and that you can help, somehow, in determining how best to curtail the potential for disaster inherent in such an attitude on the part of any branch of the American government. Treatment of prisoners of war is one thing. Determining who is a prisoner of war is another. And deciding that in a time when no war is declared by Congress, persons born in the United States constitute combatants and automatically forfeit all right to representation, justice, or legal counsel, is practically Dred Scott *and* the Alien and Sedition Acts combined.
I hope you can do something about this.
Thank you for your time and trouble
Sincerely,
(my name and address)
It's gotten to the point where I look at a news issue and ask myself, "Could I write to my pen pal in China and not feel ashamed of barking at his government through Amnesty International if I fail to bark at my own government about the very same thing?". And then I get ashamed that I have to do the barking at all.
Goddammit.
Today's pulp survival tip is #184. Make no assumptions about the true gender of anyone who you haven't seen completely naked.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-06-21 02:46 pm (UTC)Thank God for small favours.
Date: 2002-06-21 02:57 pm (UTC)And I hope my Congressdudes are aware of this. I would get scared if they answered & failed to mention that cite. If they DID mention it - good for them. That, I can deal with.
Having said that - off to the gym. Then tonight I watch Jet Li pounding the crap out of people.
I'm an American. I can do that if I wanna.