Tie minimum wage increases to inflation - we have done that here in the State of Washington and we are now just shy of $8.00/hour. It works very well. AND, our economy is very, very strong with low unemployment. To naysayers of minimum wage and its' impact on small business, I say...prove it.

 Also, as the minimum wage goes up, Wal-Mart, Home Depot etc, can't sit on the sidelines. They too have to pony up at least a bit better wages for their underpaid employees.

 Number 6 - universal preschool is an absolute must.

And, Red Planet's number 10 (single payer healthcare) - another absolute must.

 This is a great list of must dos. Let's make sure we continue to press our Democratic Senators and Congress Members to work for passage of each of these goals.

Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.

This is somewhat on topic...Should The Decider announce troop increases on Tuesday we are calling for an immediate response nationwide. We here in Montana are planning direct action to demonstrate disgust at the contemptuous attitude and dangerous disconnect from reality increasingly on display in this administration. We urge all readers to organize immediately in your area and spread the word throughout the blogosphere. The MOMENT is soon upon us. In Solidarity.

Link minimum wages to inflation. Yes!

1. Restore habeas corpus, emphatically endorse the Geneva Conventions, ban secret detention and extraordinary rendition, and shut down Guantanamo and all secret torture sites.

The Democratic Party ignores this at their own peril. If the Democratic Party ignores this, they actively imperil America. The Natural Rights of All Humans is not a gift of the state to its citizens. It is preexistent and preeminent to a state's being, and not within their legitimate power to legislate. This is non-negotiable, it is not on a bargaining table. Only a tyrannical state claims it possesses the power to strip humans of their Natural Rights, and it was expressly NOT a power given to The US Government in the only document that legitimises its power, the Constitution.

There were many non-aligned to political party who helped turn the tide towards the Democrats this last election. Many based their decision primarily upon the obscene theft of rights, which rightfully are secured through universal human possession, by the Republican majority congress, and a president, who claims his powers exist without the Constitution, which he has now twice sworn honourably to defend, protect and uphold. The same president, whose acts have been the catalyst for "circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation."

Will the Democratic Party actually prove they are preferable to the GOP, or will they simply provide evidence once again, that they are a significant part of the problem; the flip-side of the poisonous coin which is intent upon destroying the Dreamtime America?

They were covered under POW treaties, as well as imprisoned by a government which still believed it was compelled to respect humans' natural rights. Do not compare how the US treated POWs in WWII with the obscene manner in which our current government has, for you defame America's history by doing so.

The detainees are either POWs, and protected under the umbrella of the Geneva Conventions, or they are humans, who the government claims are criminal actors, yet still arrogantly refuses to adhere to Constitutional requirements; providing due process of law, and minimally violates the 5th, 6th, 8th and 13th Amendments in these actions.

There is no third way.

Habeas Corpus is NOT a right which a government possesses control over, it is a natural right. To ask if the government should give habeas corpus to detainees is to admit that you do not believe the government is bound by The Constitution, that you do not believe certain rights are secure with their possession by humans, and believe instead, all rights are gifts of a magnanimous state to its citizens, and therefore insecure.

I see, So you are saying the Nazi spies in this American detention camp were being held by a government that had "respect for humans natural rights" so they were right to hold them until the war was over without giving them Habeous Corpus rights which are clearly intended for non-combatants in civilian life.

Your second paragraph is just not true. The Geneva conventions do not present only those two choices you mentioned POW or criminal. Read it first and get back to me.

Furthermore, I can't see how you can on the one hand praise the treatment of the Nazi spies' indefinite imprisonment and then turn around and argue the opposite.

Not a bad list E.J. All 7 wishes are possible.

Hearings are fine. But you / we shouldn't get our hopes up on any action in the next two years. I must remind that the Democratic majority in the Senate is 51-49. If any single Senator votes with the 49 Republicans, the bill is not passed.

The 51 Democratic Senators includes Joe Lieberman. But he is quite liberal compared to Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Ken Salazar, and Mark Prior, for instance. Most of those four are opposed to many of the initiatives you list.

I don't know that I buy your idea of Natural Rights, Pseud (may I call you Pseud?), but I love and second everything else about your comment. Whether natural or not, the right of any person to challenge his or her seizure by the government is absolutely fundamental to not just American, but Western civilization. To surrender that right is to surrender a civil liberty that goes back 800 years.

If the Democrats won't fight for it, who will? And if they won't fight against this would-be tin-horn, then against whom?

Please don't demand some mystical belief in natural rights and natural law in order to reject Bush behavior. We don't have to be simpletons to be moral.

No.  This is NOT what "Pseud" was saying:

I see, So you are saying the Nazi spies in this American detention camp were being held by a government that had "respect for humans natural rights" so they were right to hold them until the war was over without giving them Habeous Corpus rights which are clearly intended for non-combatants in civilian life.

 What I understood the statement to be was that the Nazi spies were POW's, and so were under the Geneva Conventions RATHER than Habeus Corpus.

What I think that we Americans have to realize is this:  We can't have it both ways.  We can't imprison people without charges, torture them; invade countries under false pretenses; we can't assist in the lynching of someone who was a CIA asset for 40 years (and who could incriminate many of our big-wigs); we can't waste the lives of our citizens and throw money at powerful friends of the administration while denying benefits to veterans and indeed, our elderly and sick.

We can't do all of the above and claim to be the good guys.  The Bush administration has removed the last semblance of decency from our country.  Our reputation is shot, but even more serious than that, they have stoked (and capitalized on) our fears rather than our strengths, and we are diminished because of it. 

We have lost our moral authority, and the ironic aspect of this is the "holier than thou," fake piety that got these false prophets in office in the first place.  (Notice I did not say "elected" because they never were duly elected. 

 TJKING  -- get over yourself.  We have bigger problems than your whiney complaints.

Jan Knaus

Jan,

I'm glad you can speak for Pseud. I find it humorous that you break down in tears at the end of your screed and call me a Whiner.

I asked a question about the application of Habeas Corpus rights and you jump in and answer for someone else so that you don't have to answer the question.

Pseud's answer was actually better than your characterization of his words, because he has actually looked into the concept of the law he is talking about.

If you knew anything about the Geneva Conventions you would know that the Nazi spies that were at this camp were actually receiving better treatment than the Geneva Conventions offer. Our country was holding the spies in a POW camp even though, contrary to your statement, the Geneva conventions did not cover them. The "Spies" were not covered under the third nor would they have been covered by the fourth.

Our soldiers could have caught the un-uniformed Nazi spies and executed them on the spot and the Geneva conventions would have been followed to a T. They also would not have had the right under US law to ask for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be charged by a US magistrate or receive due process in a US court. That is the Third way ( and there are more).

Thats the way the Constitution works and thats the way the Geneva convention works.

If you don't like the rules, change 'em. But those are the rules.

You followed up with the statement:

"...they have stoked (and capitalized on) our fears rather than our strengths, and we are diminished because of it..."

You use the word "we". You might speak for Pseud and yourself, but when you say "we", you don't speak for me. If someone stoked your fears, then maybe you should have looked up the facts and the laws that you claim to know, before you start to whine about them, because as you confess Jan, ...you are diminished because of it.

The ACTUAL language that would apply DURING World War II is this:

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907

Article 3, above, leaves it ambiguous as to whether, DURING WWII, spies would be entitled to the benefit of being treated as POWs.  Unless we were deliberately being malicious, we would likely decide yes.  It would appear that Under these rules spies may have had more rights during war than not.

As to the very weird view that spies do not have the right to Habeas Corpus, it IS true that the president can suspend Habeas Corpus during war time.  It is NOT true that he can suspend it at other times (NOR CAN CONGRESS).  There is NOTHING in the Constitution to support the bizarre view that Habeas Corpus applies to citizens.  So, being a non-citizen spy does not render the spy ineligible for Habeas Corpus (although our Right Wing court might think otherwise).  Likewise, I would think the President would have to ACTIVELY suspend Habeas Corpus, not just seek out individual instances of suspension.

The idea that our soldiers could have shot spies on the spot, while possibly true in practice, would be murder in fact. 

Call me whatever you wish KJ, I often use just 'pdca' when self-referencing on this site. You might want to take a look at an older post of mine on this site, that lays out why I believe that Natural Rights are relevant, without even debating whether they are real, as well as my case against Mr. Bush.  I think you'll agree with the argument.

it IS true that the president can suspend Habeas Corpus during war time.

Again, I disagree, as the Constitution's only mention of habeas corpus is in Article I, which is the Powers and Duties of the Legistative branch, not the Executive. The idea that the Legislature has a power to suspend habeas corpus during any war is also too broad, given the Contsitution's text.  It can only occur when either:

1. a state of rebellion exists, or
   
2. during an invasion

and even then only when "the public Safety may require it".

These are not circumstances which presently face America. 

Maybe some of you need to consider that I am basically a friendly, offering a warning shot, high and wide. Already, others are calling down direct strikes:

Anthony Gregory, "Will the Democrats Save Our Civil Liberties?", The Independent Institute, December 20, 2006

It doesn't matter how you feel about the Independent Institute, they are respected by a significant portion of libertarians, and an even larger portion of the anti-war libertarians, and anti-war conservatives. Their musings sometimes possess long legs.

I never shed any tears, verbally or physically. When I said "we" I was referring to Americans in general. I am allowed to do that because I am an American.

I repeat: Get over yourself.

Jan Knaus

How about getting rid of the entire CONCEPT of "Signing Statements." They are a blank check for over-riding law and they make no sense.  How has he gotten away with all of this malfeasance?

Get a load of the latest one:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0104-51.htm

where Dubya has declared he can open deomestic mail "when justified" but without a warrant. 

Jan Knaus

Re: ...and in any case, there is nothing in the Constitution that permits Congress to pass a law suspending habeas corpus. The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.

Habeas corpus does not and never has applied to POWs, which is what the detainees in fact are.

I'm sure that will come as a comfort to Mr. Padilla, an American citizen who was "captured" on the battlefield of O'Hare Airport.

He got away with it because of a Congress where almost all of the Republicans and many of the Democrats rolled over and played dead.

Tom

According to your list, they have several conditions they must meet, such as clear insignias and carrying weapons openly, etc.

The Qualifications of belligerents that you quote from 1907 referred to in the Geneva conventions 1929 and then later in 1932, was being revised at those times because as the introductory statements of each mention, the terms were being interpreted broadly in practice as one might imagine. The reason why every WWII movie that we have seen conveys the generally accepted practice of considering spies not covered by the Conventions is because that was the generally accepted interpretation. That’s the reason why it has been made more specific in ’49 and later.

In article one it mentions militia and volunteer corps under specific conditions. Besides the need for insignia and carrying arms openly, there were other conditions as well, such as notifying all sides that a militia was attached to a nation or army. Paramilitary groups (Including Guerrillas) can not roam freely without a chain of command and expect to be covered by the conventions. The catch all phrase that they used “To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” was often used to classify them as not covered. A specified example was when someone used a white flag as a ruse.

Article two is to allow a citizen population under surprise attack to defend themselves. Ben Aflack in “Pearl Harbor” firing his pistol at Japanese Zeroes would be covered by the conventions and not be considered an un-uniformed spy.

Article 3 says armed forces “May consist of” combatants and non combatants. It goes on to give examples and conditions. It mentions contractors and war correspondents as long as they carry a certificate from the army they follow. The conditions for being treated as a POW under the Geneva conventions are specific, and if you did not follow these conditions and engaged in hostilities toward an army, you are not covered and could suffer the consequences.

Many of the generally accepted practices and interpretations were added as amendments in later conventions. This is the wording: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.”

Another provision allows putting saboteurs to death under the condition that the occupied territory allowed for the death penalty prior to occupation.

Mercenaries and combatants for hire that are operating in war zone in which they are not a national of either country involved does not have the right to be considered combatant or prisoner of war and in recent years American Citizens and British subjects (mercenaries)have been tried by military tribunals abroad and executed for this reason. The Military tribunals were responsible for, “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The conventions do not ask for civilian courts to try them or courts martial. Military tribunals are acceptable.

It appears what you are saying with the Spies, is that they may not have been covered, but we would be “malicious” if we operated in accordance of the rules and killed a spy that was not covered by the conventions. One spy planting charges on a bridge was waiting for a signal from his accomplice. The un-uniformed accomplice was unarmed and stepped out in the open in clear view of the saboteur and waved his hands over his head. The American commander ordered him shot before he could alert the other un-uniformed spy. The American officer saved lives and was clearly within the guidelines of the GC.

I don’t consider it "malicious" or murder. This is war.

I don’t think it is as you say a "weird" view that spies do not have habeas corpus rights in certain situations. Aldrich Ames received his trial after his information caused the deaths of several agents, but his Russian accomplice was asked to leave the country. Ames got his day in court, but the Nazi spy on the bridge did not get a day in court. The Nazi spies in the POW camp did not get a day in court.

We have been referring to habeas corpus as a right, when in fact it is referred to as a privilege in the constitution, which is why it can be suspended at times. It doesn’t say explicitly that it is a group privilege suspension or an individual one. Regarding your statement that it is bizarre to believe it applies to citizens. I believe you mean "limited to citizens". As is often true in the constitution, if it does not specifically say it applies to citizens it does not necessarily mean it does or does not. The “Privilege” has been expanded by statute and can be altered and modified by statute (Title 28, Section 2241 of the United States Code)These changes would of course be subject to Judicial Review, (see Hamdi). An example of the expansion is Border patrol holding of non citizens.

You refer to the court as right wing but they ruled against the administration in Hamdi’s Habeas case. I am sure if it had gone the other way the Left would not have argued that it is upholding a constitutional right, but many on the right argue that hearing a single habeas request does not mean any person on earth in any country can ask to be heard by the US supreme court nor would they agree with the SCOTUS majority.

Habeas corpus is an American constitutional privilege and as such is conferred upon some but not all inhabitants of the earth. It is clearly a privilege that an American Citizen should expect, but not all inhabitants of the earth can demand their day in a US court for any reason they choose.

There are Individuals in war that are not covered by the Geneva convention and not deserving of POW status. There also individuals in far away lands that might request a day in a US Federal or state court, but they do not necessarily have a right to this priviledge.

In a tip of the hat to Pseud's Natural law, the intent of Habeas is to reinforce the idea that a person may walk freely in America and if a government that functions with the consent of the free people obstructs you or confines you, It is reasonable for you to say, "Inform me of your purpose or reason for obstructing my free movement,...or unhand me and stay out of my way".

A terrorist trying to kill american soldiers in a war zone needs to be killed.

Are you refering to the terrorist named Abdullah al-Muhajir who attempted to detonate radioactive bombs in US cities?

What is your f***ing problem?  I noted a concurrence with you below 7 minutes before you made this post.  You seem determined to prove your perfection.   I am arguing the same side of this view as you are.  I happened to allow a wee bit more room than you did, not much.  It wasn't in any way intended to offend you.  Then you come along and bust my chops. 

Just because I don't subscribe to your naive realist mysticism doesn't mean I don't believe in defending rights.  I would suggest you figure out who is supporting your core claims and why they object to your silly meta-claims, rather than make yourself such an annoyance.

I think I was generous in providing several scenarios to meet and exceed the precondition as well as the exact quote from the Geneva conventions that states that spies are not covered. I gave an example of a spy in the act of combat being shot. I also gave an example of the conventions discussion of an illegal combatant facing special military tribunals. I also explained how illegal enemy combatants can be sentenced to death by such tribunals and if the country chooses to, they can have him shot. I also gave an example of a country, the US, choosing to not shoot a spy and imprison him even though he has not received the status to be covered by the Conventions. I don't know what else you need to see that although you might like to construe the Geneva conventions in such a way that no enemy of ours can be legally shot, but I'm afraid the Geneva Conventions do allow us to shoot people. That's not malicious, it's war.

If you are not sanguine about government behavior in war, who in the US is? No American gets their jollies from war although it appears you want to convince yourself a huge segment of the country has felt that way.

Trotsky once said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". Whether you like it or not, since the beginning of time, part of living on this earth is the fact that a horde of warriors can come over the hill and rape and pillage your town. The usual response is to have compassion for your brothers and sisters and try to defend your people and yourself and then to solve the problem by neutralizing the horde. The wrong response is to watch the horde burn your buildings and then contemplate your navel as to what you must have done wrong to anger them. Meanwhile your people cease to exist including your children and your way of life. You want to believe that history ended a couple of decades ago, and no one could ever hate us that bad as long as we say friendly things to others. You talk about bizarre notions.

There are people that want you dead because you have a constitution, because you are free, because you live in a country with a bill of rights. They called Carter the great Satan. They called Clinton the great Satan. If Ramsey Clark became President, they would call him the great Satan. A Palestinian shot Bobby Kennedy. You think this started in this decade, in this century? They don't like our liberty and they want it snuffed so they can take over the world and no nice talk is going to change that.

So what do you want to do? Diplomacy? What treaty is worth anything if there is nothing to back it up?
You want sanctions? Saddam used sanctions to bribe the highest officials of our closest allies to capsize the UN into a bunch of crooks on the take. Sanctions are a form of blockade, a hostile act. If the first hostile act has no effect then what is your exit strategy? How can you ratchet it up if there is no threat of force to move it to the next level. Maybe you pay ransom like we did with the first islamic terrorists we dealt with, the barbary pirates. Basic economic theory argues that you become a "Mark" and create a market for your payoffs. Forking over the milk money every day.

You go on convincing yourself that if we hide under a rock they will all go away. Maybe they won't follow us back to our homeland. Don't confront the terrorists.

If it makes you feel good to imagine that Bush only fakes like he believes in defending our country. Convince yourself that he wakes up in the morning and says more wars will increase my popularity or win me votes. If it scares you that most Americans re-elected him because they believed he is the one person that can best defend us, but an imperialist mass of fascist freaks all hopped up on Allah that are willing to kill themselves to see you blown to bits doesn't phase you,...now that's a bizarre notion. But thats just me.

KJ Liberal,

I think you have a stuttering problem or a tic. Did you say an american citizen, held incommunicado without charge for more than two years?

I have heard of that happening before. Hmmm...when was that?

Oh, Wen Ho Lee ring a bell?

A couple of weeks after the end of Bill Clinton's impeachment trial his administration needed some scapegoats to coverup for Clinton's selling our military secrets to our enemies for cash, so he chose an old frail chinese man named When Ho Lee. They fired him from his job and the Energy Secretary Bill Richardson illegally leaked his name to the press in violation of federal law. By the way Richardson has been an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case regarding this leak for 6 years.

Wen Ho Lee was beaten up in the News media like a pinata as the Evil Asian threat and the real mastermind behind all of the Military secrets given to the Chinese. He was arrested on charges and his attorneys were not allowed to see most of them because Clinton claimed national security.

This old man was placed in Solitary confinement and schackled to the floor of his cell for nearly a year. Incommunicado!

For What?

It turns out the secrets Richardson had told the New York Times he had given to the Chinese could not have come from the Lab that Lee worked.

Whoopsie!!!!

So what did Clinton do? Did He say sorry we messed up, you are really not a spy? We have egg on our face. Nope!

They launched a fishing expedition on his computers and eventually found that Lee had been downloading his work to his computer which was technically illegal. So Lee made a plea on that and was released. By the way Clinton's CIA director was fired for doing the same thing. Funny,.... no shackles, huh?

The Judge on the case, Judge Parker apologized to Lee and said it is the saddest case of Injustice he has ever seen. It was shown later that white colleagues that were investigated and found with similar evidence were not even reprimanded. Lee's case has been compared to the Dreyfus Affair, and many consider it to be a textbook example of the terrible damage that can be done to an individual when the power of government and the power of media unite against one individual.

Did you say an American citizen, held incommunicado without charge for more than two years?

The Bush administration has 230 wiretap recordings relating to Padilla's case. They have scores of Witnesses that have been interogated that worked with Padilla as a member of Al Qaeda. They have his Hand written application to the terrorist training camp he attended which is a crime if you didn't know. He was apprehended at a port of entry after meeting with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. He is also an unindicted co-conspirator in other cases against other Al Qaeda members. The evidence is overwhelming.

Even if they limit the scope of his case, the charges that he is found guilty of will send your little friend away for ever. The evidence is overwhelming that he is a blood thirsty terrorist, but I know, I know, you are hoping to get him out on a technicality. Well, you can dream and hope he is set free. Maybe he will set up shop next door to you.

So let's see Bush has apprehended Padilla because he is a member of a terrorist organization that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people and he wants to keep us safe.

Clinton racially profiled a little old Chinese Immigrant and naturalized citizen and used him as a political punching bag, chained him in a dungeon and all to defer attention away from his personally selling our military secrets to our enemies for cash to put in his own soiled pants.

One president sacrificing himself for the security of his people. The other one sacrificing our security for his own selfish needs.

An American citizen, held incommunicado without charge for more than two years.

Hows your stutter, Mr. Liberal?

"Habeas corpus is an American constitutional privilege and as such is conferred upon some but not all inhabitants of the earth. It is clearly a privilege that an American Citizen should expect, but not all inhabitants of the earth can demand their day in a US court for any reason they choose."

Jefferson seems to have believed otherwise:

"...should you choose it for your asylum, the laws of the land, administered by upright judges, would protect you from any exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States. The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."

--Thomas Jefferson,
letter to A. H. Rowan, September 26, 1798
quoted from
"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson-Definitive Edition"
Albert Ellery Bergh-Editor
Volume X; pp 60, 61
Copyright, 1905,
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association

After the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified, the right to due process of law was extended to all places within The US Government's jurisdiction, and Guantanamo Bay is certainly a place which fits under that designation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This dissent to the theft of habeas corpus should not just be viewed from the perspective of original intent. On September 27, 2006, During the Senatae Debate and Discussion regarding The Military Commissions Act of 2006, Senator Leahy introduced three letters,. In the interests of space, I've marked-up the letters at my TPM blog, and just listed the signatories to each here.

Letter One Signatories

• Ambassador J. Brian Atwood;
• Ambassador Harry Barnes;
• Ambassador Richard E. Benedick;
• Ambassador A Peter Burleigh;
• Ambassador Herman J. Cohen;
• Ambassador Edwin G. Corr;
• Ambassador John Gunther Dean;
• Ambassador Theodore L. Eliot, Jr.;
• Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.;
• Ambassador Robert S. Gelbard.
• Ambassador Lincoln Gordon;
• Ambassador William C. Harrop;
• Ambassador Ulric Haynes, Jr.;
• Ambassador Robert E. Hunter;
• Ambassador L. Craig Johnstone;
• Ambassador Robert V. Keeley;
• Ambassador Bruce P. Laingen;
• Anthony Lake, former National Security Advisor;
• Ambassador Princeton N. Lyman;
• Ambassador Donald McHenry;
• Ambassador George Moore;
• Ambassador George Moose;
• Ambassador Thomas M. T. Niles;
• Ambassador Robert Oakley;
• Ambassador Robert H. Pelletreau;
• Ambassador Pete Peterson;
• Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering;
• Ambassador Anthony Quainton;
• Helmut Sonnenfeldt, former Counselor of the Department of State;
• Ambassador Roscoe S. Suddarth;
• Ambassador Phillips Talbot;
• Ambassador William Vanden Heuvel;
• Ambassador Alexander F. Watson.

Letter Two Signatories

• Judge John J. Gibbons, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1969-1987), Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1987-1990).
• Judge Shirley M. Hufstedler, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1968-1979).
• Judge Nathaniel R. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1979-2002).
• Judge Timothy K. Lewis, U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (1991-1992), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1992-1999).
• Judge William A. Norris, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1980-1997).
• Judge George C. Pratt, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (1976-1982), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1982-1995).
• Judge H. Lee Sarokin, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (1979-1994), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1994-1996).
• William S. Sessions, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (1974- 1980), Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (1980-1987).
• Judge Patricia M. Wald, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit (1979-1999), Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit (1986-1991).

Ken Starr authored the Third letter

In regards to your last sentence of the previous post:

"A terrorist trying to kill american soldiers in a war zone needs to be killed.

Although I do not agree with your over broad use of the term 'terrorist' in this context, I do not dispute that American soldiers have the right to use deadly force against enemy combatants in a war zone. After they have been captured and detained, they at that moment cease to be combatants, and the Geneva Conventions apply. The Geneva Conventions continue to apply even to detainees thought to not fall into the categories delineated in them, "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal"; whereupon the US Constitution takes control.

Interesting spin on Wen Ho Lee. Am I to understand that you are justifying the unconstitutional act of Mr. Bush's with the unconstitutional act of President Clinton?

Then the old maxim is true:

Two Wrongs Make a Righty

Whenever Bush is criticized some folks just have to criticize Clinton. I have friends who do this regularly, and I see it on this blog occasionally. It's what you expect from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. It's a voluntary reaction.

Bringing up Clinton doesn't advance the argument, it just changes the topic to one they're more comfortable with. It's a powerful distraction, too, because folks who appreciate that Clinton was, on balance, a pretty good president who was radically hounded by right wingers for dishonest reasons can get sidetracked into discussing Clinton instead of pressing the criticism of Bush.

Clinton's been out of the White House more than a couple of months. The newspapers and TV sets all say so. It's the policies and actions of George W. Bush that are of pressing concern here now.

Red Planet,
I guess I was right in our last discussion. Any mention of Clinton freaks you out. As I had said then, I went out of my way then to avoid mentioning Clinton, because I know it makes you uncomfortable.

The only reason why I was forced to then, is because you attributed a remark to Bush that was actually during the *blank* *blank* administration.

Your constant and perrenial accusation of people "distracting" when they mention things that you feel uncomfortable with is not as you say, a way to "advance the argument". It is a form avoidance for you.

Clinton did exist. He will appear in history books. ALL Americans have a right to talk about him. People are still talking about other Presidents impact on current events and Clinton does not get a pass. Sorry.

I am ware that Clinton has been out of the White house for a "couple of months". Nixon has too. And Vietnam was about half a century ago, but that doesn't stop people from screaming Vietnam every time a soldier so much as salutes.

Yes, Bush is now. Like all Presidents, including *Blank* *Blank*, his impact can only be seen in contrast to his peers and the times he lives.

I hope you will be OK with future references to the other 42 Presidents from here on out.

Pseud, I have seen you unload on others that weren't even criticizing you before, so please look at the sequence of post and the subsequent reply. I was replying to another post and another person. You may still consider me a coward, a reprobate heretic, a weasel more suited to another country, but I was not refering to you or your comments.

By the way, If I am a heretic to the "Dreamtime", ...other than the Australian Aboriginal context, I'd like to know to whom or what I am commiting Heresy, if you can help a wayward soul out.

I'm sorry, Mr. King, but your entire argument on this thread is so full of holes that it's not even worth arguing with. Bringing the Lee issue into this is, as Red says, just a bit of customary right-wing slight of hand to move the discussion into another direction. You could at least get the facts right in your gambit.

But no matter who does it, stealing an 800-year-old bastion of Western jurisprudence from the legal canon is just wrong. And here's the important part: It's wrong no matter what the charge is that's being levelled at the accused.

You can bet that they don't have the goods on Padilla or they would have tried him by now. It would be good law, good PR, and good politics.

Is there a Clinton Corollary to Godwin's Law? If not, may I modestly propose one?

I was offended by the government's treatment of Wen Ho Lee, btw.

As I have sort of stated in this thread, I do not believe that an argument for or against the existence of Natural Rights has any relevance to what I have stated here, because I am attempting to classify liberty using the perspective of original intent, helping to understand why some liberties are without the government's legal authority to control. What is relevant is what was believed to be Natural Rights at the time of the Constitution's creation. It isn't for the terrorists, you know, it's for America's future.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine

Jefferson was not contending that habeas corpus extended past America's official national borders, but I cannot come up with any other rational and nonequivocating reading of the fourteenth amendment.  The 14th extended the bar against government takings of life, limb or property without first applying due process of law to any place within its control. Don't view this argument ass-backwards.  The government is not empowered to steal these rights, they are preexistent and preeminent to the state's power.  To claim that this is "giving rights" to terrorists, is to claim these rights are really a gift of the state to its citizens.  They then become insecure. 

I do not think that terror and the words that use terror as a root, should be in any way exaggerated and broadly defined when used. Recently on this board, I started a fairly intense subthread, when I questioned whether the suicide bomber who killed our Marines in Lebanon, while they slept, was truly a terrorist. Peace keeper or not, we were a foreign force, and had previously come under attack from every party in that civil war, including the IDF, but excepting the small official Lebanese forces. It was clearly purely a military target. It was nasty and nightmarish, but to term it terrorism will not further the cause of ever getting a rational definition for the term into international law. The same goes for most of these new cases of "green-terrorism". Torching an under-construction ski resort is arson, as is torching RV's. Trespassing on private property to release privately owned domesticated stock, that is intended to be rendered as a basic commodity in the fur industry, into the wild, where they can be eaten by predators is counter-productive serial stupidity, and if you find it terrorising, you might want to stock up on some Depends. Spiking trees in a designated logging area though is terrorism.

 Front-line soldiers fresh from battle are not in a position to fairly judge whether any captives are truly combatants or terrorists. The assumption should be made on the battlefield that they are POWs covered under the Geneva Conventions. and that they should be transported behind defensives lines of control ASAP, otherwise the captives become an all to easy target of retribution for soldiers who are angry and grieving over fallen comrades.  Dangerous waters, which need to be aggressively patrolled.  This is why I'd hesitate to use the term terrorist in any battlefield connotation.

We're Americans, and we're supposed to play by the rules, because it is about how we play the game as well as whether we win or lose, and if we forget the former, there is no way to win. 

Karl, I believe this about respect. It is the default position in terms of interpersonal relationships. Beyond the introductions, people earn either respect or disrespect based on their words and actions. Clearly, I haven't earned yours.

Nothing I said was intended to be read in the way you took it, so I apologize for not being more clear. Except for your first sentence I could not agree with you more.

I've been dismayed at the state of public education as I watched my grandchildren go through it, and my children struggle with how to get them the best possible education, given the constraints of family life, money and job demands. I think all parents today are faced with almost existential choices about education of their children, and I wish, fervently, that I knew what the answer was.

I just don't think that mandatory preschool is the answer. I agree with JPF311 that "Kids should be given time and space to be kids..." but I also said "This is not to say that there are not children who are capable of benefitting from pre-schools..." My experience, and my belief, is that children develop in different ways at different ages, and we should not try to force all children into the same mold, especially when they are quite young.

If you want your children to be in preschool, that option should be open to you without having to pay an arm and a leg. If my children want my grandchildren to wait a year or so before going to school, that option should be open to them. With all their faults, I believe parents are the best judges of what is right for their children, especially when they are very young (acknowledging here the realization that, as a parent, I exhibited many faults.)

What I wanted to say about E. J.'s proposal for mandatory preschool was that it appeared be offered as a solution to the problem working parents face in arranging for the care and safety of their children while they were at work, and I thought that the solutions offered by JPF311 would be better, preserving more options for both parent and child. I also believe that E. J. and JPF311 both were honestly motivated in offering different solutions.

And, by the way, home schooling is okay with me so long as parents understand the burden and the responsibility and have the time and energy and interest to devote to it. It is not a cakewalk.

I think it is unfair for you to compare President Clinton to Hitler.

A relatively bright person might try to defend his administration's treatment of Wen Ho Lee.

A principled person might have the courage to admit that Lee's treatment was one of the most despicable miscarriages of Justice in recent history.

And then there's you, Knee Jerk Liberal.

Take a bow!

Why, thank you Mr. King. You know, a person doesn't achieve an award like this on his own. I would like to thank all the really little who has made this possible for me, particularly you, Mr. King. Without all your hard work distorting, obfuscating, distracting, and actually lying about the facts of the Lee case, this moment would not have been possible. It was also you who first brought up the name of Hitler, an direct invocation of Godwin's Law!

I would also like to thank Red Planet and PseudoCyAnts and other lefties, without whose award-winning performances I would not be on this podium.

"God" bless you all!

Very clearly stated, K J. Besides being a distraction because of the Clinton sidetrack, the Wen Ho Lee case never involved denial of habaeus, which, I think, was what the conversation was about.

(Just so no one misunderstands my position, the maltreatment of Wen Ho Lee by our criminal justice system was odious. And it happens every day in similar ways to Americans we never hear of, because their cases are low profile and they don't have the resources to fight back.)

You are right, Karl. Babysitter was a poor choice of words because of the potential to offend. I employed it thoughtlessly. And I took mandatory to mean children would be required to attend.

More options for parents, including access to high-quality public preschool, is an agenda I can strongly support.

I'm done having fun with you, Mr. King. You may rant at will.

That some children are neglected by their parents doesn't lead me to mandatory preschool as a solution. Aren't their family or community resources to bring to bear as an alternative?

TJKING, you have been one to post with thought and without malice. I see that some rate your posts unfairly, just because they disagree, yet you have not called the acts foul. You have encountered more than one trap I set in your path on this thread to test your mettle, and have gracefully stepped around them. You, sir, are obviously not a FREEPing fool. (it's a personal joke) This by itself is strong evidence of honour. You deserve two comments from me.

First, I do firmly believe that I stand upon the high ground on this issue, and do speak from that which I call the Dreamtime America. What kind of liberty is this when a people allow its leviathan two sets of rules in its acts towards humanity, predicated only upon whether these humans exist within or without? It is our beast, and must be muzzled, or it will turn against its onetime master, and use the very same tactics too. It was in large measure Great Britain's application of double standards between their Nation and their colonies, which precipitated the American Revolution. This double standard of treatment was also stated as cause to justify our independence when the case was submitted to a candid world. I offer another analogy to America's founding: The Two Georges Irony. It has not caused me pleasure to resist these last few years. I truly had other plans for this part of my life. I have laboured throughout this period, sharpening my rhetoric on the stone of my conscience, and tempering it in the fire of duty to and passion for country. It has come at personal cost, neither germane to this discussion, nor easily stated in terms of fungibility. I have no regrets, for even if I fail, I know that when it was midnight, and the darkness was descending, I stood and spit into its very eye; there is no blame. Even if my analysis is errant, it was still error on the side of human freedom. What is the harm providing to all humans, who the government claims to be our enemy, a trial based completely upon our own internal standards of justice before they hang. Even the devil deserves this in America, simply because we are Americans, and better than the rest. Thus speaks honour. Has this country really lost so much that it does not understand? Freedom's Beacon upon the hill is growing dim; Ave Caesar.

Second, you deserve a touch of direct illumination, but it will probably only be offered once. Take care making assumptions regarding my rhetoric. I have always traversed the elliptic, and have learned the value of attacks from out of the sun, and directed at the blind-side. I do speak from conscience and personal conviction; still, if a target of opportunity presents itself, a misthreaded location is given a value of nil in firing computations, and I have little problem when setting traps, to bait them with a morsel of treacherous dishonesty. At the same time, I tend to intensity of thought, and intuitive actions. In life, this has served me well, but is also a source of personal mistakes. Obtusity will be an epitaph.

cheers..

I should have checked who rated the post preceding my last before commenting here. I am aware that you rate honestly, just as I am aware that you sailed through a bit of heavy weather on my account in the past.

Still, even though I vehemently disagree with TJKING's assertions that there is justice to be found within any system that has two standards for human rights, his arguments are reasoned, and I have not found them disruptive. Instead, they have help me to better visualise where the obstacles lay between the present and my goal, and given me new data with which I can begin to conceptualise causes able to effect them. A universality of human rights still greatly concerns many Americans; and many are doing what they are capable of, attempting to help our countrypersons remember why it does matter. All is not yet lost in the new world friend. Quizás hay un futuro donde beberemos el café junto en la costa Española...will peace, but keep your cartridges dry.

Tough question. Our great-grandchildren will probably still be grapping with it.

I enjoyed the discussion, too.