Yesterday morning on NPR, this guy was discussing the results of Boumedeine. He was describing a future where the government had to go before a judge to justify every single person detained in a war: to prove that the detainee had some sort of belligerent connection, and to prove that the detainee was dangerous enough to justify locking up. He then said that the government would have to reaapear before the same judge periodically and justify not releasing the detainee.
To be clear, this applied both to people arrested on the street and to people captured on the battlefield. And, to be clear, this prospect made the commenter giddy.
The longer Boumedeine sets in on me, the more it becomes apparent that it may very well be the single greatest shift of power from one branch to another that our government has ever seen. It happened without a vote being cast, and there are those in this country who have allowed their dislike of the current president to lead them to cheering on the Supreme Court’s usurpation of war fighting powers.
For the first time, I’ll define a Supreme Court decision as scary. Both in its hamstringing of a legitimate war effort, and the in the inter-branch power struggle that will most assuredly result from it. If the judiciary insists on maintaining the unstated premise of Boumedeine - that they are supreme over the wartime decisions of the president regarding how to fight a war - they will lose.
The Founders defended the lack of limits placed on the federal judiciary by pointing out that it was naturally the weakest branch, controlling neither the military nor the treasury. Some on the court seem to remember how ill-prepared they are for a real fight with the other branches. That the wisdom of the Founders is lost on the current Court should come as no surprise.
Apollo posted this at 7:04 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 as We don't need no stinkin' Constitution, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, Liberty and/or Security
2 Comments »
One of the things I’ve always found most attractive about McCain is that he has all of President Bush’s resolve in the war on terror without the weird excesses. Jacob Sullum has evidence that I may have been wrong in this:
…I noted that John McCain seemed to have a less expansive view of presidential authority than George W. Bush. Now the distance between them seems to be shrinking. In a recent letter to National Review Online, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin reported that the Arizona senator believes President Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by approving warrantless monitoring of international communications involving people in the United States. According to Holtz-Eakin, who was responding to an NRO post by Andrew McCarthy that questioned whether McCain was sufficiently supportive of Bush’s position on this issue, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate believes “neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”
Holtz-Eakin added that as president, “John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from [terrorist] threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.” The reference to Article II clearly implies that McCain would feel free to violate any statute he believed impeded his ability to conduct anti-terrorist surveillance.
…
There is no ambiguity as to whether FISA required warrants for the sort of surveillance Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, and the argument that Congress unintentionally amended FISA when it authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban does not pass the laugh test. The only real issue is whether the president has the constitutional authority to disregard statutes such as FISA when they get in the way of actions he considers necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. In December, McCain said the president does not have that authority; now he says “there’s ambiguity about it.”
Dammit, John. When it comes down to it, the actual wiretapping probably isn’t the hugest deal in the world, though I’ll add that that hardly makes it right. What kills me about the whole business, though, is that the president — upon realizing that the FISA bill was antiquated and unduly impeded necessary surveillances of terrorists — decided to simply ignore it. It never even crossed their minds to go to Congress and say, “Hey, this FISA thing is a disaster. We need to change it.” Unfortunately, this sort of “It’s my constitution, I’ll do what I want!” attitude is perfectly justified in America today, so long as you can plausibly tie it to fighting terrorism.
Tom posted this at 11:38 AM EDT on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 as George Bush Sucks!, Audacity of Hype, Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »
Via TJIC, New York’s Nassau county is posting pictures of people arrested for driving while intoxicated. I don’t have a problem with humiliating drunk drivers—unlike the guy at Pajamas media—but shouldn’t these people have the trial first?
A troubling potential abuse of this: a grumpy cop just pulls someone over, the driver gets his picture posted on the wall of shame, and he could well lose his job—even if he wasn’t driving while intoxicated. Without the trial, I think this is a bad idea. Nassau county supervisor Thomas Suozzi (whom I once hoped would upset Eliot Spitzer in the NY gubernatorial primary) should be run out of office.
Hubbard posted this at 5:03 PM EDT on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 as Philosophy, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Liberty and/or Security
1 Comment »
We’ve had a spate of killings here in DC. It’s not just that we’re again in the running for murder capital of the country. It’s worse than usual:
In the first five months last year, Ward 5 recorded eight homicides. As of Sunday, there were 22 homicides in those same neighborhoods. Five killings took place over the weekend.
Although not a Ward 5 resident, I’m getting a bit jumpy. It’s not THAT hard to get from ward to ward: I leave one ward, cross another, and finish in a third every day on my walk to work. (For you residents of normality, there’s only 8 wards, so every day I’m in nearly half of them.) Naturally, there’s pressure to do something. This being DC, however, the city government’s response has less to do with effectiveness and more to do with just doing something—sort of like airport security.
Tom noted this story earlier today when it was a rumor. Now it’s official, and even dumber than I’d feared:
Drivers will have to show identification proving they live in the neighborhood, or explain why they are in the area. Valid reasons would include “attending church, a doctor’s appointment or visiting friends or relatives,” the city said in a statement. Those lacking identification or a reason to be in the neighborhood will be forced to leave.
Similar efforts may be made in other neighborhoods as well, if local police commanders request them, officials said.
“In certain areas, we need to go beyond the normal methods of policing.” Fenty said. “We’re going to go into an area and completely shut it down to prevent shootings and the sale of drugs.”
But despite the tough rhetoric, the program as explained seemed fairly limited in scope. Pedestrians will not be subjected to police checks, for example, and loitering will not be addressed. [emphasis added] While Montello Avenue stretches about seven blocks between Mt. Olivet Road and Florida Avenue, the checkpoints will be in effect only along the 1400 block.
Lanier said the approach is modeled after a program used in New York City. She said police are focusing on cars because there have been a significant numbers of shootings from or into vehicles this year.
Police will search cars if they feel they have probable cause to do so. Drivers who don’t cooperate with the request to produce identification or who object to being refused entrance to the block could face arrest for failing to obey police.
So if I’m loitering around, I can keep an eye out for police and they won’t bug me; I’d just wait till the patrol had moved on before getting down to business. Contrariwise, if a tired tourist gets lost while driving around our insane streets, he’ll get the third degree from police. Beyond that, now that any drug dealer who reads the Washington Post knows where the bulk of the police will be stopping people, what’s going to stop them from moving a few blocks away to continue the drug dealing and shooting?
From everything I know about the New York City programs, the emphases were on foot patrols, police knowing the neighborhood and residents well, and computer tracking of crimes to let cops know which areas needed more patrolling. This program looks like it came out of the TSA airport program. Perhaps they can make drivers take their shoes off, too.
Hubbard posted this at 5:39 PM EDT on Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security, Denizens of DC
No Comments »
Who could possibly object to this brilliantly patriotic — and patriotically brilliant! — idea?
D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.
Hubbard, I hope you have your documents in order. If not, you might want to follow Megan McArdle’s suggestion:
I hope that when the police ask for their papers, people will hand them a copy of the Bill of Rights too. It might prove instructive. If not, at least we’ll all have the grim pleasure of saying “Here are my civil rights. Please take them.”
Tom posted this at 12:23 PM EDT on Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »
In America we live safe in the knowledge that something like this could never happen here.
Am I right?
Hello?
…
Jamie posted this at 1:36 PM EDT on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 as Commie Recrudescence, Liberty and/or Security
7 Comments »
I’m too amazed to say anything. First Padilla, now this.
“What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?” Judge William B. Traxler asked.
“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
Tom posted this at 12:31 PM EDT on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security
30 Comments »