Although its ultimate resolution is complicated, the question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: Does the President have the power — and/or should he have it — to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?
How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent.
To repeat: That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent.
More Greenwald:
Anyone who believes that the President should have the power to order individuals inside the U.S. imprisoned forever with no charges and no process is someone who, by definition, simply does not believe in the political system of the United States.
The use of extraordinary measures in order to protect the country has much historical precedent. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_of_Rights_is_not_a_suicide_pact
Jerry pournelle said it well:
“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide.”
You’ve convinced me Ephraim. I’ve found your argument for the “use of extraordinary measures in order to protect the country” convincing.
As most Albuquerqueans feel far more threatened by local gangs than they do by al-Qaeda, I suggest we call in the fighter-bombers from Kirtland AFB to take out large swaths of Albuquerque near the fairgrounds — the so-called War Zone.
Seems to me that both you and Lieberman would welcome this policy to eliminate all “threats,” real and perceived.
Your comments here: http://newmexiken.com/archives/2007/06/0011365.php raised my hopes.
Darn!