why haven't America and Australia been attacked

The problem/good thing in the United States is that our media is extremely anxious to make sure that every single case of an interrogator speaking rudely to an inmate is as widely publicized as possible.

 

I think, however, that since Watergate, the media has been in this spot where they seem to think the goal of journalism is to be the one that took down a president.

 

Oh, i have read it long ago. But of course PATRIOT has been a summary-term for the different acts and laws following 9/11.

But htere is a passage (I can´t quote, for I don´t have it on my computer anymore) that has been taken word by word from the "rules of declaring a stae of emergency" from the IRC.

That had been the reason for the Human Rights Comission to blame the US two years ago. It clearifies the conditions under which rights can be limited, but takes it out of the usual context of IRC rules (which is a draft-code, not ratified . . . no true rules).

BUT!: I think the Human Rights Comission has been entirely wrong about it. I have probably implied something else in my post, that was more to make the point that PATRIOT and GITMO both touch fields of change in law after 9/11.


I am a strong defender of -limitations of rights- when it comes to terrorism. 9/11 was something unique in history. There was no exisiting legal method in international law to provide any conclusive answer on what the US was allowed to do, or not. But I think it is nonesense to say the US cannot react therefore (as the HRC did to some extend), for International Law is not only about treaties but common law. And with every natural desaster causing 3000 dead, limitation of rights would have been perfectly justified.

SirakRomar wrote that the US has never declared the "state-of-emergency" which is absolutely right. But I think a delaration is not obligatory, when this state is obvious. "de-facto emergency" this is called and surely a dangerous idea, but not when you have such an extreme situation as (I repeat myself) 3000 dead.

So, my point was, it wasn´t that seperated as an issue . . . Gitmo and PATRIOT. But I am not one of those who think US should have taken a "human-rights"-protection-above-all approach on the situation. Because I think life is the ultimate right. Protecting it, justifies certain meassures.

Sorry if I take a very "International-Law"-tainted approach. If Sira would be here she would start arguing now, I expect. (We know each other from another political board, quite well)

 

Actually she is around, Marc. Äh . . . LordT.

I guess we have discussed this before a dozen times. But this is not a lega board, so I won´t bore people with my response.

Nevertheless, I might say on the "limitations-of-rights" thing, which is surely very theoretic, as the US has not become a 1984-state, that it is highly arguable. And you have some points, surely.

Something the law-scientists all over the world realized, but media didn´t covered at all was, that other countries had more extreme responses to comparable threats (if there are any).

But welcome on this thread, LordT. Good to see, you are still to interested to stay away from discussions like this

 

LordT, you said that international law had no mechanisms do deal with the post-9/11 world, in effect ("There was no exisiting legal method in international law to provide any conclusive answer on what the US was allowed to do, or not")

However, in UNSCR 1368, it was recognised that Article 51, Chapter VII of the Charter was indeed applicable law (the inherent right of armed self defence), which meant that Chapter VII decisions became relevant precedents in US policy engagements.

E_S

 

The problem/good thing in the United States is that our media is extremely anxious to make sure that every single case of an interrogator speaking rudely to an inmate is as widely publicized as possible.

Yes, because beating, waterboarding, and murdering detainees is the media's fault.

 

Chapter VII does not touch national rights, but only the right of self-defense in it´s different forms. It is a state-to-state right (in which terrorism is today an anology of a state). Limitations of rights to your own citizens are not covered under Chapter VII.

 

Well, if you could give me a clear and concrete example of the curtailing of any US citizen's rights following Sept 11 - and I mean examples rather than vague anecdotes - I might consider your point as valid and factual. Otherwise, no.

E_S

 

Well, if you could give me a clear and concrete example of the curtailing of any US citizen's rights following Sept 11 - and I mean examples rather than vague anecdotes

Jose Padilla.

 

An aside to Padilla:

Beyond that he was indeed charged under flimsy evidence, 2 of the 3 charges have been dismissed and he's currently undergoing psychiatric evaluation for PTSD due to extended isolation.


I'm not a particularly huge fan of the Patriot Act; this 'war' on terror will eventually subside or end, and if the Act is still law then I'll be grumpy, to say the least. But as I haven't seen any mass arrests of war protestors/declaration of Bush as First Emperor of the Republican Empire p), or declaration of martial law with no factual basis to do so, I'll be not as worried.

 

Actually, one of the dismissed charges (conspiracy to commit murder) was reinstated. source

The other dismissed charge was only dismissed in part, not in full.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Australia and the United States haven't been attacked because the terrorist threat is imaginary. The likelihood of you dying because of terrorism is 1 in 100,000.

The attacks of London, Spain, and elsewhere are criminal acts not acts of war. None of the targets were military installations or convoys.

People don't like believing everything is not in their control. Nine eleven happened because some tenacious zealots outsmarted the airlines.

Bush tells us we are not attacked because we are engaging the enemy. His misinformation has reached such absurd heights no one questions it anymore.

Those in Iraq who would have the will to attack the United States were not there to begin with, namely the foreign fighters of an umbrella al-Qaeda group.

They are the weakest element of the insurgency and the most reviled. They rarely kill American GIs. The object of their bombings are usually civilians.

Face it, we have not been attacked because there are not militants with bomb vests lurking underneath your bed.

<[-]> Saber

 

Even if from a legal point of few it is ridicolous to think a state reacting to a threat would not limit civil rights (judges do this every day, in criminal law) I surely can give some examples.

I find myself making points against myself, for I have seen all actions justified, but then again . . . I shall name some.

- Section 215 and 505 of the Patriot-Act. Privacy.

- Presidential order on the cases of José Padilla. James Ujaama and Yaser Harndi (the "Enemy-combatants issue") deprieving them of civil rights.

- Executive Order 13292 - Limiting access to information by the citizens

- Immigration-Issue, not legislative changes, but legaslative tolerance for new interpretation (see reports below)

I haven´t found the order of military tribunals of your President from November 13, but if you have better sources read through it, they don´t try to hide it.

For those interested in more:

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/military-commissions.htm

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/Assessing/AssessingtheNewNormal.pdf

And US-pages of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, HRC

of course:

Human Rights Comission Report 7749-03 (not in the net, more then 2000 pages, but there you find 1.700 breaches of international treaties. Sounds alot, not? It isn´t. Russia had over 60.000)

And for those who really think rights have not been limited by the Gouvenment of the US I recommend your Supreme Court. He handled the matter a few times and found it justified to limit rights based on the threat from terrorism. But they thought it to be beyond doubt that several laws did limit them.

________________________

Then again, I want to bring forth, that limitations of rights sounds terrible, but is the most usual thing in politics there is. You cannot provide the right of freedom to a murderer, for example. He has this right, but to uphold security and order the state has the right to limit it. To a prison cell.

Actually this should have been SirakRomar´s job. She is the HRW member. This sources are from a mail of her to myself. So no credits to me, please.

 

Section 215 and 505 of the Patriot-Act. Privacy.

And exactly what do you think these sections say? Not to single you out, but this is the concept I'm trying to illustrate. Many times, people throw out vague references-"SECTION 215," and attribute all sorts of factors to them, even if they're not accurate.

Perhaps we should again start off with a link to the actual Act:

HERE

All Sec215 does is modify existing law:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

It's nothing shocking, and as I pointed out, it's a policy that exists in every other European country. The Patriot version even has a clause that protects citizens based on the 1st Amendment.

All Sec505 does is cover toll records used for telephone calls, not the calls themselves.

Neither one is particularly damaging to privacy, beyond perhaps a general concern that one might have with any government investigation.

Relating to "Executive Order 13292," all I could find was this:

13292

Which simply looks like it applies to the standard classification system already in place.

Regarding Padilla, it's important to realize:

1)Padilla was originally arrested on a valid federal warrant

2)The 4th Circuit Court UPHELD the President's authority to detain enemy combatants, and stated that Padilla could challenge his status to the SC.

3)That's when he was transferred to civilian control.

4)Nothing in the Patriot Act even applied to Padilla's situation.

 

I am a little confused. When have I linked the Executive Order and the Patriot Act? ExO is an ExO and the PATRIOT ACT is an act? They are two seperate examples.

_________________

Then again, I stated several sources that can explain almost any of your questions.

Actually in 2004 before the HRC and in 2006 before the congress the US Gouvernment did not deny the "limitations of civil rights" through the Patriot Act but simply justified them. As I said, in my opinion they are justified.

So if you force me to be the attacker . . . I haven´t studied law to be unable to play both sides.

If there haven´t been any serious problems with this, why did they congress felt it needed to add a list of safeguards? Source? Here it is . . . http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=232

__________________

Please, please please stop telling us european lawyers what our constitutions and laws say . . . not that you cannot because you are not one of us. Not that I don´t believe an american, asian or anything could know a lot better then me . . . but you make an amazing collection of statements that are absolutely untrue.

EHRC forbids the trafficing of private information (and that is almost everything, according to Strasbourg) to any other private or official person. Exclusions are everything concerning Taxes or beneficial use.

_______________

And by the way I knew what these sections said. As did the guys writing the sources I put a link to.

______________

Executive Order 13292 and Protocol have established the idea of US-citizens as "armed combatants". If you have not followed this discussion, please again check the sources, I have posted. It surely is the strogest of my examples, as Ender Sai has requested them. And when I google EO 13292 I have a few thousand results, from Human rights watch to american newpapers . . . strange you haven´t found anything . . .

_______________

As grateful as I am that SirakRomar thought of me and invited me, I don´t think this board is the right place to discuss, for me. So, if I leave any "strings of discussion" haning in the air (translation of a german saying) please feel free to pm me. Otherwise it has been my pleasure and I wish you most intersting times around . . .

LordT
_______________

 

Please, please please stop telling us european lawyers what our constitutions and laws say . . . not that you cannot because you are not one of us.

Then I see you understand what I was trying to do. Let me ask you, how is it that you can admonish me for not being European, but at the same time, make definitive statements like:

"Gitmo has been an example of rights cut down by your state, the PATRIOT-ACT has done the same. But actually you find no strategy-paper on "war-on-terror" where both have not been mentioned."

What I meant was that the original language of Patriot contained 1st Amendment protections. There is no "1st Amendment" in Europe, so I was just interested in seeing how you reconcile the two. What makes one better or worse than the other? Again, what "rights" have been cut down relative to similar policies that both the US and Europe have enacted? Might it be easier to criticize something like the Patriot Act because you're not familiar with it and/or have not studied it?

Is it easier for you to believe assumptions about Americans, while at the same time, recognizing that the reverse may not be true? It's the exact same phenomenon. Instead of making sweeping generalizations- without even providing the source material- I might add, all I want is for the actual references to be examined for what they are.

The US and Europe can work together quite easily, and for the most part, that's what happens. But you have to move beyond the perceptions and assumptions.

And to add, you're always welcome to contribute to the discussion if you're interested.

 

M44, have you read the sources he has given to you? Because he has, I know. And if you haven´t, he is not the one who hasn´t studied the PATRIOT ACT.

The European Constitution has no 1st Amendment, you are right. That is little surprising, for there is not European Constitution or anything comparable.

We have 37 different Constitutions all of them having their own "1st Amendments". The german one for an example ist 20 pages longer than yours. Covering 117 rights of the person (right, probably you got it, we give them not only to citizens but to everyone) "Grundrechte", "Les Droits Civil", "Lakinia" . . . what do you think we have? Do you know any of our constitutions?

But even if we haven´t. We have the ECPHR. Which is, to my knowledge, the farest reaching instrument of human rights protection in human history. If I should guess I would suspect you don´t know it, do you? For it makes your statement a little . . . uninformed. Your 1st Amendments is in it, as a matter of fact. Completly.

I can only say, you should take the advice of LordTroepfchen. Your statements about Europe are terribly uninformed. His sources, as you will find out when you care to read them, are all of american origin.

_________________

LordT, as a matter of fact, knows something about the USA. Saying he hasn´t read the PATRIOT-Act is rather silly. Without giving too much away about him: One could say . . . it is his job. Or it was, once.

 

1st part of post:

M44, have you read the sources he has given to you? Because he has, I know. And if you haven´t, he is not the one who hasn´t studied the PATRIOT ACT.

I'm not sure, because there certainly is a disconnect here. At any rate, I provided the actual text a couple of places above. Set aside all of the outside sources and we can read the text together.

More importantly, how would you react if I posted something like any of these examples, except I reversed the focus? Would you simply accept them, or would you be interested in finding out the origins of such perceptions:

"Gitmo has been an example of rights cut down by your state, the PATRIOT-ACT has done the same. But actually you find no strategy-paper on "war-on-terror" where both have not been mentioned."

or

And it is shocking to hear, that within´two years your country has cut down so many rights it couldn´t theoretically enter the European Union anymore.

or

To get something straight, you can read any source on it, but the EU has the highest standards of human-rights protection in history of mankind.

or

There is no Gitmo in EU, nothing even comparable.

Are you so concerned about upholding the mindset? Is it that important for you to hold on to? At every turn, when the actual subject is examined, you always dismiss it in comparison.

Fine. Europe protects all sorts of rights, even if they can't be described, that US citizens don't enjoy. There is nothing remotely close to Gitmo in Europe. The Patriot Act is the worst example of civil rights abuses that has ever existed in the modern world.

Now, I don't think any of that is accurate, but what does it matter?

 

I'm trying to work out if our Teutonic friends are having trouble with the language barrier or simply enjoy irony in a most gluttonous sense.

This elicited a minor, derisive chuckle from me.

I'll be the first to admit the current US administration wouldn't know leadership if it staged a coup declaring, "I'm leadership!"

However, I draw the line on both hypocrisy and witless supposition.

You cannot accuse Mr44 of not knowing European law because he's not European then turn around with the same characteristic arrogance and dictate to him on American law.

Why not, you ask, genuinely surpised.

Because frankly it is hypocritical.

I have read the Patriot Act, I had to and when I read it I was profoundly disappointed. Where's the juicy Orwellian oppression? Where's the Machiavellian manuevering to make Bush an emperor? It's just not there - I was lied to!

LordT, the reason you'll find no strategy paper on the war on terrorism is because most of that stuff is cleared to TS at the lowest level, code-word above that.

So if you haven't seen a strategy paper, it's because you're not considered as being relevant to it. I can tell you there were strategic outcomes to a trilateral CT discussion in Sydney last week, but the extent of them is outside my clearance.

Yes, the Southeast Asian groups are definately grateful that Europe maintains a human rights commission.

And your statements on America are equally ill informed. If I don't live in the US and know they're wrong, that ought ring alarm bells in your head.

If I were to take the musings of Le Pen and apply them to France, would that be accurate? Opinion is not fact, and taking a fringe view and making it mainstream is no better.

Why then do you take one viewpoint as accurate without independent research?

The answer is simple; you have a preconception about America and this very neatly conforms to it. You want to assume the worst because we've watched American leadership stumble and fall and these notions support that idea that in doing so, America will become what we all fear it could become.

It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, and LordTropfchen mentioned immigration...

Given I work in that area, I'll gladly point a few things out.

Firstly, immigration controls and tighter border security are necessary as it enchances the capacity of a state to detect and deter illegal or unlawful movements. My department and the Security Service are linking software to facilitate faster background checks on applicants and to use biometric analysis to check passport scans at the primary line.

So any laws which tighten this in the US are welcome, given the US' somewhat lacking Immigration capacity in the illegal movements stakes. 9/11 Commission found that the passport was a terrorists most valuable weapon.

The report is, at best, laughable in this respect because it goes so far away from reality and actual intelligence concerns for some Utoptian goal of how border movements should work.

Similarly, it does what I hate as both intellectually dishonest, and utterly typical of self-righteous leftist publications - it confuses fact with opinion. The notion that the Justice Department engaged in a "fear campaign" through a call-in programme, is utterly idiotic and I say this knowing full well the viability of call in lines.

For lawyers, their research is appalling, and their continued scare-monger

 

I'll be the first to admit the current US administration wouldn't know leadership if it staged a coup declaring, "I'm leadership!"

And this has been my point all along. I'm less interested in defending the current administration, and more interested in simply examining the actual policies. Effective policy is effective policy, and while no piece of legislation is perfect, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

This is why the concept of perception is so important. If Bush or Cheney had simply kept their traps shut, then none of this would have been that big of a deal. Using a past example, Gitmo was used as an immigrant detention center in the 90's, it's just that Clinton didn't look like he was celebrating that fact, even if he did or didn't. As a result, I don't even think anyone paid attention to Gitmo for the previous 10 years.

But this is why I keep repeating that the Patriot Act isn't evil simply because Bush had something to do with it. The facilities at Gitmo weren't any better or worse pre-2001, than they are post 2001. One can read the act while at the same time removing the man from the equation.

All of the above can certainly be examined/criticized/praised for what they are, but the perception doesn't have to be so sweeping.

 

Mr44

I wholeheartedly agree that hyperbole is far in excess in regards to reality. But I don?t think the Patriot Act is without controversy or the changes in law as benign as you seem to imply, and this is not just from ?anti-Bushies?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

For the record, I think Gitmo was used as a detention center starting in the 70s. And I think your assertion that they ?weren?t better or worse? before 2001 (although technically speaking, it was 2002 when it was opened as a detention center) is not accurate in terms of what the issue is, mainly of the allegations of treatments of the prisoners there, in addition to the issue regarding the status of prisoners there.

So I agree with your assertion that reality should best hyperbole, but while your analysis is certainly very solid, I find it to be a bit incomplete.

ES

I take it neither of you have had any security-related positions, right?

Logical fallacy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

I?ve always wanted to do that to you.

 

DS, I've always said that anything can and should be examined. I've certainly never said the specific act is without controversy.

How many times now have I linked to the actual act now? A dozen or two? The point to linking to the actual text is that it allows everyone involved to start at the baseline.

It's the same with Gitmo. 70's, 80's, 90's, the exact time doesn't matter. I specifically had information from the 90's, if it goes back farther, it just illustrates my point more deeply.

 

Fair enough, but just like any act or law, there are going to be different ways that intelligent, reasonable people interpret the act or law.

Regarding Gitmo, I pointed to the timeline for basically technical reasons, but the purposes of Gitmo clearly changed after 9/11 (it was previously closed in 1995 yes?), thus comparing them is kinda apples and oranges, which of course doesn't in and of itself mean it was right or wrong to open Gitmo in 2002, rather that the dispute over Gitmo since then is really an issue unto itself.

 

Just to let you know, even if you may not believe it, human rights are NOT american law. They are international law. And I guess I have studied that. I know it better than german or french law. I even hold a title in IHRP. So sorry if you think I am ill-informed, but what I posted is what my sources told me. UN Commission Papers, Congress Report of the US-Congress, HRW. LordT posted some links above. I coud add hundreds more. I would have welcome any sources from your side. Even if prooving me wrong.

Since when isn´t HRW or the American Lawyer Assosiation a source of legal sciences or reviews?

If my english was not perfect to make my point, I am sorry.

We talked about the UN Human Rights Comission, which is mostly asian and african these days. US is a member since 1986. Asia and US have their own regional ones, but I have not saw them mentioned here.

 

Fair enough, but just like any act or law, there are going to be different ways that intelligent, reasonable people interpret the act or law.

Sure, and that's a debate I'm always ready and willing to have. Which is why I always provide the law.

But if someone is going to make an argument like "the Patriot Act is bad because it gets people arrested for checking out library books," then it's going to be a rocky debate because it doesn't say that anywhere in the text.

Debating the merits of what the law says=good
Arguing about a perception=not so fun

If I made the statement that I hated Roe v Wade because it abolished the death penalty, I would expect people to point out the error of my perception. I may be trying to link abortion and capital punishment and just didn't state my ideas clearly, or I may simply be misinformed. One would be worked out during the following debate, while the other may be a simple mistake. But allowing me to continue thinking that Roe v Wade abolished capital punishment doesn't do anyone any good.

(and for the record, I don't hate Roe v Wade, it was just an example.)