Death of a President

[Lucky]

This movie has received some criticism for its subject matter, especially given that it postulates the death of the existing president. There is nothing about the movie though that takes any glee in that occurence. Rather it is a studied view of our political system and the roles of the media and the government, particularly the Secret Service and FBI. I can't say it is a flawless production, but it had me fascinated from start to finish.

One thought I came away with is that the right needs only one more terrorist incident before it takes our civil liberties and puts them into a museum. A second thought...President Cheney? Perhaps they should have called it Scary Movie 4...

[Guest Conway]

Having majored in political science as an undergraduate, I'm still pretty confident and comfortable with the fact that our constitution offers a series of checks and balances among the three branches of government that will allow this democracy and the rights that it assigns to its citizens to continue on withoput regard to whether "the right' or "the left" controls government for a limited period of time.

Curiously, I ask, for the sake of discussion, please tell us what rights you believe that the citizens of our nation have given up under the leadership of the right?

Personally, I have a great deal of faith still in the founders of this nation and the elasticity of the bill of rights they authored.

[Lucky]

"Curiously, I ask, for the sake of discussion, please tell us what rights you believe that the citizens of our nation have given up under the leadership of the right?"

Have you been to the airport lately, used a cellphone, taken out a library book, been detained as an "enemy combatant" or tried to access a public building? All of those things are affected by the right-wing Cheney agenda.

[AdamSmith]

Well, there is the small matter of the erosion of habeas corpus.

It has happened before, but in hindsight was never judged a good thing. The Alien and Sedition Acts are recognized as a low point of John Adams's administration. And Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War ultimately brought this pronouncement from Justice David Davis:

"(The) good and wise men (who wrote our Constitution) foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, . . . and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, . . . (That is why) the Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with (its) shield all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. . . No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of (the Constitution’s) provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."

There is debate over whether the current administration, with Congress's compliance, has gone this far. But we are, at least, well along the slippery slope.

[Guest Conway]

With all due respect, I air travel a couple of times a month on business and I get stopped nearly everytime I travel as I carry a CPAP machine to treat a bad case of sleep apnea. I hardly consider security matters a breach of my constitutional rights so much as I consider them an incovenience that generally slow my arrival at the gate by ten minutes or so.

Inconveniences of time are hardly tatamount to restrictions of civil rights.

I cannot think of one American Citizen, outside of Jose Padilla, a man who re-entered the United States from a terrorist training camp with the intention of detonanting a dirty nuclear device, who has been been held as an enemy combatant. There are no American Citizens held at Guantanamo. There are foreign nationals who have a sworn allegiance to harm and/or kill American citizens. As a matter of fact, the only two American Citizens (both held dual citizenship in Saudi Arabia) ever sent to Guantanamo after capture in Afghanistan, were quickly transferred within days to the US court system for prosecution. I thibnk that speaks very well for the respect that the tribunal system at Guantanamo has for the rights of American Citizens who were caotured fighting for the Taliban.

If you're suggesting that our government should give the rights that it affords to our own citizens to thye sworn foreign enemies of our citizens (e.g. those detained in Guanatnamo and elsewhere),then, yes, you and I will have a point on which to disagree vehemently.

I have to admit that I tend to buy more books than I borrow from libraries. But, in my somewhat infrequent visits, I haven't seen anything earth shattering in the difference in my library's inventory now versus, say, 10 years ago.

I think you're buying into too much of the daily spin that one hears from the mainstream press. Its all about emotion rather than fact. In my opinion, it is key, for the purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens that our government govern based on fact rather than wildly emotional rhetoric.

[Guest Conway]

I think that's an extremely relative argument as long as one believes that non-aliens and non-citizens are entitled to the same rights that aliens and citizens are. I don't. Perhaps, you do. And I can respect that difference of opnion.

From a practical standpoint, particularly in the case of captured Al Qaeda operatives, I have no doubt that the present administration allowed cases to be thrown into the apellate system for the purpose of "farming" as much intelligence from certain detainees as it could.

As a result, a number of plots against western citizens seem to have been quashed. I'm all for that managed use of our judicial syatem if it protects American lives in that I know, in the end, our system of checks and balances will ultimately protecting the rights that we hold dear as citizens.

[AdamSmith]

>I think that's an extremely relative argument as long as one

>believes that non-aliens and non-citizens are entitled to the

>same rights that aliens and citizens are. I don't. Perhaps,

>you do. And I can respect that difference of opnion.

Respectfully we do differ on this. Three years ago I heard no less than Dick Armey make a strong case against the Bush administration's various lockdowns against foreign nationals. A Ph.D. economist, he started by talking about current visa policies that make it difficult for highly skilled non-U.S. professionals to come here and work -- he cited big dollar figures in lost U.S. wealth creation as a result.

But then he surprised me by going on to an even more impassioned plea about how the Constitution and the republic are founded on the core principle that "all men are created equal" -- not all citizens, but all the human race. And because of that, practically alone among nations, the U.S. extends equal protections to ALL within its purview, not just its own.

Of course he was not denying that terrorists exist, but reiterating Ben Franklin's point that, in being frightened into curtailing our own founding principles, we are letting them win.

[Guest StuCotts]

The Jose Padilla case does not make your point. The indictment he is now under represents a withdrawal by the Administration from all three accusations that originally caused him to be detained as an enemy combatant. The indictment does not mention the dirty bomb, the intent to stage attacks within the USA or al-Qaeda in any context. The very fact of the present indictment is due to the Administration's fear of a showdown with the Supreme Court on the case.

That tells us that we are not being protected against terrorists, but against people Bush unilaterally and in the absence of any proof or possibility of trial chooses to call terrorists. The lack of judgment he has demonstrated in every aspect of his so-called war on terrorism to date doesn't inspire confidence in this aspect either.

Regarding threatened rights, I nominate the right to legitimate dissent without attracting Adminstration-sanctioned accusations of treason from the shrill, intellectually and morally bankrupt likes of what populates the right-wing media sewer.

[Guest Conway]

OK. I can live with the fact that the Padilla case does not make my point.

Thus, if I eliminate that case from my argument, I must tell you that I cannot name even one citizen or resident alien who has been held as an enemy combatant in this case.

But rather than thread a needle with my argument, I will say that I firmly believe that the unspoken purpose of this adminsitration's detainment of Padilla as an enemy combatant was so that it would have an ample opportunity to leverage any intelloigence that it could from him.

Remember, Padilla was one of the first big captures of someone that we could definitely tie to the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. I believe that from Padilla's initial arrest, the administration knew that iit could not win a case justifying his detainment. However, it was willing to allow Padilla to go through a long and arduous appeal process fr the purpose of interrogating him to the fullest extent.

On an ideological level, that approach is clearly wrong. On a practical level, it appears that it may have been immensely effective in farming useful information from Padilla.

[Guest Conway]

That's a wonderful argument. And one of the best that I have heard with regard to this issue.

Not reiterate my whole response to Stu Cotts above, I believe that from an ideological point of view. you, Dick Armey and Ben Franklin are right on. From a practical perspective, I firmly believe that our ideological enemies in this war are of the belief that we, as a nation, absolutely expect that we will rely upon that impassioned argument which they are perfectly willing to leverage with the goal of establishing fundamentalist Islamic states in the west over time.

That's why I speak of the elasticity of our constitution and particularly of our bill of rights. I believe that histotorically, our constitution has allowed us to curb the rights of certain groups (in this case the ideological combatants of Islam) in order to preserve the order of and the rights given to our citizens by the Constitution itself. This theory, of course, assumes, that when the enemy is defeated, then the rights of those combatants or those sympathetic to the combatants will be restored.

That was certainly the case in World Wars I and II.

[Lucky]

"This theory, of course, assumes, that when the enemy is defeated, then the rights of those combatants or those sympathetic to the combatants will be restored"

Good luck with that.

[Guest Conway]

It happened (that is it was restored)to US Citizens after World Wars I and II.

Given the fact, as I have pointed out, that there are no citizens or resident aliens being held in violation of their habeus corpus rights in Gitmo or other "black " prisons, you're probably right.

When we return these people to places like the Saudi Kingdom, the Musharraf government of Pakistan and the UAE, they'll be lucky to receive life sentences in prisons that will make them long for the the 4,000 calorie a day diet and regular prayers they are allowed at Gitmo...those who aren't beheaded on the spot, that is.

That's ok with me.

[Guest Johnnybrk25]

The library thing mentioned earlier wasn't about the materials available at the libraries or bookstores. Its about the secret gathering of information by the government on your reading habits. The libraries and bookstores are required to provide this info to the government without notifying you or anyone else that it was even requested. A great deal of information gathering without any kind of oversight got slipped into the way the government operates after 9-11 and has been mostly used against American citizens engaged in civil disobedience around animal and civil rights and ecological activism. The right to dissent is whats being eroded and in a democracy that wants to remain one that's frightening. Even committed pacifists organizing or speaking about these important social issues have had information gathered about them without the protections offered by a court ordered warrant. The fact that so many of our modern politicians seem more interested in politics as a resume builder for speaking engagements, silent partnerships on corporate boards, or celebrity status of some kind and zero interest in public service I don't think legal and civil protections figure into current political climate. We seem to have a climate of insane greed powering the political and social machinery and anyone who disaggrees is branded a traitor or enemy of the state.