Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same
as another person's that my reasoning is the same
A Good Cause or Two
The Best of P6
The Racism Series
The Reparations Series
Installing a negro in your head
Identity Blogging
Where We Stand
The LimbaughDiscussion That has Nothing To Do With Limbaugh
Search
Local Links
The Attack on Civil Rights
Corporate Influence on Government
The Development of Race
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity
Blogger Archives
EMAIL ME AT
Blogroll Me!
The Public Library
The Black Experience in America
The Souls of Black Folks
My Bondage and My Freedom
The Martin Luther King Jr. Collection
Walker's AppealThe Shaping of Black America, Ch. 3
Archives
June 13, 2004 - June 19, 2004
June 06, 2004 - June 12, 2004
May 30, 2004 - June 05, 2004
May 23, 2004 - May 29, 2004
May 16, 2004 - May 22, 2004
May 09, 2004 - May 15, 2004
May 02, 2004 - May 08, 2004
April 25, 2004 - May 01, 2004
April 18, 2004 - April 24, 2004
April 11, 2004 - April 17, 2004
April 04, 2004 - April 10, 2004
March 28, 2004 - April 03, 2004
March 21, 2004 - March 27, 2004
March 14, 2004 - March 20, 2004
March 07, 2004 - March 13, 2004
February 29, 2004 - March 06, 2004
February 22, 2004 - February 28, 2004
February 15, 2004 - February 21, 2004
February 08, 2004 - February 14, 2004
February 01, 2004 - February 07, 2004
January 25, 2004 - January 31, 2004
January 18, 2004 - January 24, 2004
January 11, 2004 - January 17, 2004
January 11, 2004 - January 17, 2004January 04, 2004 - January 10, 2004December 28, 2003 - January 03, 2004December 21, 2003 - December 27, 2003December 14, 2003 - December 20, 2003December 07, 2003 - December 13, 2003November 30, 2003 - December 06, 2003November 23, 2003 - November 29, 2003November 16, 2003 - November 22, 2003November 09, 2003 - November 15, 2003November 02, 2003 - November 08, 2003October 26, 2003 - November 01, 2003October 19, 2003 - October 25, 2003October 12, 2003 - October 18, 2003October 05, 2003 - October 11, 2003September 28, 2003 - October 04, 2003September 21, 2003 - September 27, 2003September 14, 2003 - September 20, 2003September 07, 2003 - September 13, 2003August 31, 2003 - September 06, 2003August 24, 2003 - August 30, 2003August 17, 2003 - August 23, 2003August 10, 2003 - August 16, 2003August 03, 2003 - August 09, 2003
July 27, 2003 - August 02, 2003
July 20, 2003 - July 26, 2003
July 13, 2003 - July 19, 2003
July 06, 2003 - July 12, 2003
June 29, 2003 - July 05, 2003
June 22, 2003 - June 28, 2003
June 15, 2003 - June 21, 2003
June 08, 2003 - June 14, 2003
June 01, 2003 - June 07, 2003
May 25, 2003 - May 31, 2003
May 18, 2003 - May 24, 2003
May 11, 2003 - May 17, 2003
May 04, 2003 - May 10, 2003
April 27, 2003 - May 03, 2003
April 20, 2003 - April 26, 2003
April 13, 2003 - April 19, 2003
April 06, 2003 - April 12, 2003
« Keep them judgments coming |
Main
| If you believe it, you can ach…never mind… »
June 18, 2004
Because the USofA has always restricted citizens' rights in an unconstitutional manner when it feels it's at war. Afterwards we've shown the same remorse and resolve not to repeat the error that a young man inspired by a hangover shows over getting drunk.
Make sure you have rights left
We like to think all citizens of the United States of America are guaranteed certain civil and human rights. Unfortunately, that guarantee is subject to the vagaries of human judgment. At times of national crisis this nation has always reduced the protections we are "guaranteed" by law. In fact Justice Scalia has said in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum. I won't let it go beyond the constitutional minimum."
It is expected. There is historical precedent for it. Unfortunately, in every case the historic precedent has been that the impositions were deemed unnecessary and, in most cases, unconstitutional after the fact.
The first such case was the Alien and Sedition Acts which passed in 1798. The threat was a French-backed navy of privateers operating in the area around the West Indies which was threatening the expanding U.S. merchant shipping force. The Act allowed the President to order
One month later an addendum was added to the law. Section two is worth quoting in its entirety:
Under the Act the reigning Federalists party arranged for at least 25 arrests, 15 indictments, and 10 convictions—all against the minority Republicans. Among the defendants were the four leading Republican newspapers and three Republican officeholders. And when the Republicans took power in the 1800 elections, Jefferson pardoned most of them and Congress paid their fines.
It is fortunate the Act had a sunset provision, specifically expiring March 3, 1801 or there would be no need for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act…and before you dismiss that remark as partisan hyperbole, remember that John Ashcroft's Justice Department charged Greenpeace a full fifteen months after one of their standard protest under an 1872 law:
The next such instance was President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War…an event I've seen Conservative commentators use to support the idea of a Presidential perogative to cut into civil rights at times of war. Unfortunately, this one actually made it to the Supreme Court…also unfortunately, after the Civil War ended. And Mr. Ashcroft should heed the last paragraph of the decision:
The next major breech of civil rights took place during World War I. According to a speech given by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.[pdf],
And of course there was the infamous interning of Japanese Americans during World War II, a case so egregious that reparations, symbolic though they may have been, were paid to survivors.
Now we find ourselves "at war" with a concept. Once again we're told we're in a situation where the "suspension" of our rights is "necessary" for national security, for the duration…of a "war" with an undefined and undefinable end. Will we as a nation allow our rights to be suspended when the odds of being struck by lightning are greater than that of being involved in a terrorist attack?
Posted by P6 at June 18, 2004 06:10 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2347
Comments
Make sure you have rights left
We like to think all citizens of the United States of America are guaranteed certain civil and human rights. Unfortunately, that guarantee is subject to the vagaries of human judgment. At times of national crisis this nation has always reduced the protections we are "guaranteed" by law. In fact Justice Scalia has said in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum. I won't let it go beyond the constitutional minimum."
It is expected. There is historical precedent for it. Unfortunately, in every case the historic precedent has been that the impositions were deemed unnecessary and, in most cases, unconstitutional after the fact.
The first such case was the Alien and Sedition Acts which passed in 1798. The threat was a French-backed navy of privateers operating in the area around the West Indies which was threatening the expanding U.S. merchant shipping force. The Act allowed the President to order
…all natives,
citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government,
being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be
within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable
to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.
One month later an addendum was added to the law. Section two is worth quoting in its entirety:
SEC. 2. And be it
farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or
publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or
published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing,
printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious
writing or writings against the government of the United States, or
either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of
the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either
house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or
either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them,
or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United
States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite
any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of
the United States, or any act of the President of the United States,
done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by
the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat
any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs
of any foreign nation against United States, their people or
government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court
of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not
exceeding two years.
Under the Act the reigning Federalists party arranged for at least 25 arrests, 15 indictments, and 10 convictions—all against the minority Republicans. Among the defendants were the four leading Republican newspapers and three Republican officeholders. And when the Republicans took power in the 1800 elections, Jefferson pardoned most of them and Congress paid their fines.
It is fortunate the Act had a sunset provision, specifically expiring March 3, 1801 or there would be no need for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act…and before you dismiss that remark as partisan hyperbole, remember that John Ashcroft's Justice Department charged Greenpeace a full fifteen months after one of their standard protest under an 1872 law:
The group is
charged with violating an obscure 1872 law intended for proprietors of
boarding houses who preyed on sailors returning to port. It forbids the
unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of
her destination."
The last court decision concerning the law, from 1890, said it was meant to prevent "sailor-mongers" from luring crews to boarding houses "by the help of intoxicants and the use of other means, often savoring of violence."
The last court decision concerning the law, from 1890, said it was meant to prevent "sailor-mongers" from luring crews to boarding houses "by the help of intoxicants and the use of other means, often savoring of violence."
The next such instance was President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War…an event I've seen Conservative commentators use to support the idea of a Presidential perogative to cut into civil rights at times of war. Unfortunately, this one actually made it to the Supreme Court…also unfortunately, after the Civil War ended. And Mr. Ashcroft should heed the last paragraph of the decision:
It follows, from
what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions when
martial rule can be properly applied. If, in foreign invasion or civil
war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer
criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active
military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to
furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to
preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left
but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the
laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it
limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the
courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial
rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and
unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the
locality of actual war.(emphasis added)
The next major breech of civil rights took place during World War I. According to a speech given by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.[pdf],
…during World War
I the Senate considered a bill that would have made the entire United
States a military zone within which anyone who published any material
that might endanger the success of U.S. military operations could be
tried as a spy by a military tribunal and put to death.11 Unwilling to
go this far, President Wilson instead convinced Congress to enact the
Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime, during a time of war, to
make false statements with the intent to interfere with the success of
U.S. military forces or military recruiting. This Act provided the
predicate for confiscating antiwar films and raiding the offices of
antiwar organizations. In 1918 the Act was amended to make it a crime
also to "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal,
profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about" the U.S. form of
government, Constitution, flag, or its military forces or uniform "or
any language intended to bring the [same] into contempt, scorn,
contumely, or disrepute
All in all, over two thousand individuals were prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Very few individuals were convicted for actually urging men not to enlist or submit to the draft—purportedly the main object of the Act. Rather, the vast majority of the convictions were for stating opinions about the war that the courts treated as false statements of fact because they conflicted with speeches by President Wilson or with the resolution of Congress declaring war. Among the supposed "threats to national security" that were prosecuted under the Act were statements of religious objections to the war, advocacy of heavier taxation instead of the issuance of war bonds, suggestions that the draft was unconstitutional, and criticisms of the Red Cross or the Y.M.C.A.13 Moreover, such "subversive" statements were criminalized even if they were never directly communicated to soldiers or to men about to enlist or be drafted—it was thought enough that the statements might conceivably reach such men and undermine the war effort.
All in all, over two thousand individuals were prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Very few individuals were convicted for actually urging men not to enlist or submit to the draft—purportedly the main object of the Act. Rather, the vast majority of the convictions were for stating opinions about the war that the courts treated as false statements of fact because they conflicted with speeches by President Wilson or with the resolution of Congress declaring war. Among the supposed "threats to national security" that were prosecuted under the Act were statements of religious objections to the war, advocacy of heavier taxation instead of the issuance of war bonds, suggestions that the draft was unconstitutional, and criticisms of the Red Cross or the Y.M.C.A.13 Moreover, such "subversive" statements were criminalized even if they were never directly communicated to soldiers or to men about to enlist or be drafted—it was thought enough that the statements might conceivably reach such men and undermine the war effort.
And of course there was the infamous interning of Japanese Americans during World War II, a case so egregious that reparations, symbolic though they may have been, were paid to survivors.
Now we find ourselves "at war" with a concept. Once again we're told we're in a situation where the "suspension" of our rights is "necessary" for national security, for the duration…of a "war" with an undefined and undefinable end. Will we as a nation allow our rights to be suspended when the odds of being struck by lightning are greater than that of being involved in a terrorist attack?
Posted by P6 at June 18, 2004 06:10 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2347
Comments
Post a comment