Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (52341)	10/19/2006 7:52:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I don't even think you need the - "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" idea in this case. Lincoln's suspension of Habeus corpus dealt with holding American citizens that were captured in America, not with intercepting communications from overseas to suspected agents in America, or with holding enemies captured overseas. Until relatively recently there has never even been a serious suggestion that I know of, that holding captured enemy is unconstitutional if you can't find them guilty of a crime.

To: longnshort who wrote (52341)	10/20/2006 2:48:39 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Thanks for that paper from Mackubin Thomas Owens. I have bookmarked it. I like that he does not evade the issue (as so many do), but rather offers an attempt to justify unconstitutional acts by asserting a constitutionality residing in the Presidency. The tension between vigilance and responsibility being eased by the President exercising an individual prudence outside of the Constitution per se is founded on the quote from Locke: "the power [of the executive] to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law and sometimes even against it." Owens goes on to summarize: President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, ". . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln's point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about. So we have in this instance the outpouring of citizen "jealousy" (in the context of the article) attempting to check an act of executive prudence. Remember that the article states that "the President possesses his own inherent constitutional powers"..."not derivative of any congressional power. One of these powers is the prerogative." This prerogative (as referenced in the Locke quote above) must be constrained by the "jealousy" of the populace in their vigilance. The fear and anger being expressed by many people over citizens and non-citizens alike being cast into some nowhere land limbo outside of International laws and conventions of combatants and without the right to due process of civilians is the playing out of this vigilance to insure that the "prerogative" does not get out of hand. Some think it already has... The following law review by Dr. Terry D. Gill and Dr. Elies van Sliedregt is a scholarly look at the issue of non enemy combatants and the legal issues involved in depriving them of the right to challenge their status. It is a long read but well worth the effort. utrechtlawreview.org