A few quick thoughts on the pending fighting of terror issues pursuant to recent congressional testimony and other commentary:
Sen. Thune referenced how different things on today, how more dangerous our enemies are. I find this amusing ... suddenly the German, Japanese, and Vietnamese were not behind cruel and inhumane actions (Holocaust, etc.) while also being a grave risk to the security of our homeland. Consider Pearl Harbor, the feared attack of the West Coast, and the saboteur attempts by the Germans. Or, rather, somehow they were less of a threat. Various rules of military justice apparently obviously don't apply here. For instance, speedy trial rules. But, why not? Maybe, not the same figure, but the current rule for criminal courts is something like six months or whatever. If not totally fixed, and they rarely are, such rules should apply here too. Why shouldn't detainees have some access to lawyers from the beginning? I assume the basic rules, including being told of your rights (this doesn't mean the exclusionary rule follows), can apply quite easily. If one cared to do so. Sen. "Impeachment Manager" Graham had a line of questions to show how hunky dory things are ... lots of "affirmative" responses. For instance, the Combatant Status Tribunal Hearings were obviously legitimate under the terms of "competent tribunal" rules. Well, the military witnesses might think so, but we have had numerous accounts by now suggesting things are not so obvious to everyone. Putting aside the usual arguments concerning Sen. Specter surrendering to the President respecting his "compromise" slashing of FISA (which provides slim security anyway, secret courts that have a near 100% approval rate ... well until the Dubya Years, at least), I continue to think serious Fourth Amendment issues are involved here. It is not just adequate congressional security on our privacy and limiting the breadth of executive power.
To wit:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers."
Under this bill, the government could get permission for long-term programs involving large numbers of innocent individuals with only a showing that the program is, in general, legal and that it is "reasonably designed" to capture the communications of "a person reasonably believed to have communication with" a foreign power or terrorist group.
This is not just pursuant to the "Yoo Theory" of royal executive power, but clearly seems to cover American citizens on our own soil. They too can fit under these terms, and surely this has Fourth Amendment connotations. Where is this "national security" exception to the Bill of Rights? After all, communists were thought to be agents of foreign powers too. Were they legitimately spied upon without warrants and so forth?
I think not. This new "compromise" would supply the President carte blanche, at most the FISA Court would look at the "program" overall, not specific searches. This "general warrant" is exactly what the Fourth Amendment guards against. In the past, dissident religious groups were at stake, threats to national security of the British Empire.
How some things stay the same, huh?One witness' theme was that if the military just follows its own regulations, all will be well. This is telling: one reason why many inside (I'd call them the "honorable fifth columnists") were so upset at the change of policy (into the abyss)was because it threatened the sanctity of the military. "Sanctity" must sound downright naive to some of the clowns running things now.
Probably more, but this stuff is so depressing. Props to those to fight through and actually manage to demand we uphold our own American values. Or, the ones I thought we are supposed to be defending.