[B5JMS] ATTN JMS: Have you seen this? Shades of Nightwatch?

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Jason E. Schaff" <jschaff297061 at comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:38:39 GMT
Lines: 90

Jms at B5 wrote: [in part]
> 
<major snip>
> 
> The administration says we are at war, and therefore must sacrifice our 
> rights.  But in fact we are NOT at war.  There has been no declaration of 
> war from congress.

So, you are saying that the Korean War and Vietnam War
weren't wars?  Get real!  It is possible to be in a de facto
_state_ of war without the existence of a de jura
_declaration_ of war.  Additionally, a declaration of war
can only be issued against another nation state.  At present
we are in a de facto state of war against a non-governmental
entity (actually a group of entities), so there is no nation
against which to declare war.  This does not mean that we
are not at war.  (As far as the invasion of Afghanistan
goes, I am of the opinion that a DoW should have been issued
against the Taliban, although I can understand the reasons
for not doing so:  a DoW would have recognized the Taliban
as the rightful government of Afghanistan, something that
was not necessarily desirable.)  Sorry if there is a bit of
ranting here, but this is a comment that _really_ gets my
dander up.
> 
> Is the solution to detain American citizens in military cells without right 
> of attorney (even if they are lowlifes like Padilla)?  
>
With a couple of exceptions, all of the detainees in
_military_ custody are foreign nationals, not US citizens. 
All the detainees at Guantanamo were armed enemy captured in
a combat zone by US military forces.  The Guantanamo
detainees should _not_ be in civilian custody.  As for the
few actual US citizens in military custody related to recent
events (a number small enough that I suspect even Zathras
could correctly count them  :-)   ), I would wholeheartedly
agree that they should be transferred to the custody of
civilian authorities. (except for the couple of individuals
caught fighting alongside the Taliban:  they are, if guilty
of the charges made against them, traitors who should face
firing squads)
>
> Is the solution to dealing with maybe a few dozen dangerous guys (and there 
> have ALWAYS been dangerous guys in this country, anybody who thinks 
> otherwise is nuts) to have a million people acting as informants and spies 
> on other American citizens through TIPS?
>
As I have stated in a couple of other posts, I do not see
that TIPS or the Citizen Corps really makes any difference
in this matter.
Situation without TIPS:  Various people call in leads, tips,
etc. (true, false, paranoid, vindictive, or otherwise) to
<insert name of law enforcement agency here>.
Situation with TIPS:  Various people call in leads, tips,
etc. (true, false, paranoid, vindictive, or otherwise) to
TIPS.  TIPS passes info along to <insert name of law
enforcement agency here>.
Net result with TIPS:  A bunch of money wasted.  Period.
>
> Is the solution, as Ridge and Bush are now advocating, to use the military 
> to make arrests in violation of the Posse Comitatas act?
> 
Here I agree with your concerns one hundred percent.  This
is the very first seriously proposed government action since
9/11 to raise worries in my mind about dangerous
infringement of civil liberties.  Posse Comitatas should be
regarded as as sacrosanct principle:  the military is not,
and should never be used as, a tool of law enforcement.
> 
>  jms
> 
> (jmsatb5 at aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)

As ever, just my $0.02.

Jason
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason E. Schaff

jschaff297061 at comcast.net

Speak the truth, but leave immediately 
afterwards.
--Slovenian proverb
---------------------------------------------------------


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 25 Jul 2002 00:53:29 GMT
Lines: 107

>So, you are saying that the Korean War and Vietnam War
>weren't wars?  Get real! 

Hmm...let me go over what I actually wrote, and see...nope, I didn't say that. 


(It's been my experience that when somebody begins with "So are you saying,"
the odds are extremely good that in fact you NEVER said that, just as I didn't
say it here, the person is reacting to something that they want to fight
about.)

>It is possible to be in a de facto
>_state_ of war without the existence of a de jura
>_declaration_ of war. 

Granted, and that was never the point.  The point I was making was that for
someone to start changing the laws under which this country operates, you can
only do so under conditions which allow you to make such sweeping changes.  If
someone like Bush wants to start making those changes, which are considered
only appropros in time of declared war, then he should declare war and get
Congress to authorize it.

In neither of the cases noted above did anyone try to change as drastically as
now the laws under which this country operates.

>Additionally, a declaration of war
>can only be issued against another nation state.  At present
>we are in a de facto state of war against a non-governmental
>entity (actually a group of entities), so there is no nation
>against which to declare war. 

I doubt very much that anyone would let semantics get in the way of something
like this.  If one can declare war *without* congress without naming a nation,
why could you not declare it *with* congress?  And I don't recall seeing or
hearing anything  indicating that it HAD to be a nation-state.  Where is this
stated?

>I am of the opinion that a DoW should have been issued
>against the Taliban, although I can understand the reasons
>for not doing so:  a DoW would have recognized the Taliban
>as the rightful government of Afghanistan, something that
>was not necessarily desirable.) 

Except of course that in the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush administration
was, according to some published accounts, in negotiation with the Taliban to
see if they could work out an oil pipeline deal, so I don't think this would
have been much of an issue either way.

>Sorry if there is a bit of
>ranting here, but this is a comment that _really_ gets my
>dander up.

Understandable...except the part where I pointed out that I never *said* the
coment that "gets your dander up."

Perhaps it's a dander problem.  Have you considered Head and Shoulders?


>With a couple of exceptions, all of the detainees in
>_military_ custody are foreign nationals, not US citizens. 

Exceptio Probat Regulum: the exception puts the rule to the test.   

First, there should be NO exceptions, that is the law of this country, that a
civilian cannot be held in this fashion without being charged, without being
given access to an attorney, without due process.  It doesn't matter if it's
one, three, fifty or a hundred, the law is the law is the law.

Second,  you don't KNOW that it's only "a couple of exceptions."  We only found
out about Padilla *six months* after he'd been picked up.  How many other
American citizens are currently being detained without counsel?  In fact, you
have no idea how many there are, because we haven't been told, because the
administration doesn't feel it HAS to tell us.

So this part of your argument goes out the window on both counts.

>All the detainees at Guantanamo were armed enemy captured in
>a combat zone by US military forces.  The Guantanamo
>detainees should _not_ be in civilian custody.

Never said they should.  Again, it would be most constructive if you were to
respond to what I actually said than responding to what I *didn't* say as if I
had said it.

>As I have stated in a couple of other posts, I do not see
>that TIPS or the Citizen Corps really makes any difference
>in this matter.

And lots of other people, including any number of Republicans, DO see it as
making a huge difference to the tone, tenor and structure of this country.

Your mileage may vary.

But I imagine the STASI were put in with similar justifications about the
general good.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2002 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)