Ignoring Padilla case, Blankley suggested Bush administration curtailment of civil liberties applied only in capture of foreign terrorists
SUMMARY: In his Washington Times column, Tony Blankley wrote: "After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records." Contrary to Blankley's suggestion, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was held without charges for more than three years.
In his February 12 Washington Times column, Tony Blankley wrote: "After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records." But contrary to Blankley's suggestion that the administration rolled back civil liberties in the capture of only "foreign terrorists," Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen apprehended in Chicago, was held without charges for more than three years.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Padilla was apprehended in May 2002 on a material witness warrant; the administration claimed he had been plotting to set off a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant" in June 2002, and he was taken to the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina, and held for three years without charge. As a June 27, 2002, CNN.com article reported, Padilla's court-appointed attorney highlighted the fact that Padilla had not been formally charged while contesting his detention. From CNN.com:
Padilla's court-appointed defense attorney, Donna Newman, called for Padilla's release in a document known as a petition for habeas corpus. In her petition, Newman noted that Padilla has not been formally charged with any criminal activity.
"There is insufficient evidence for the government to obtain an indictment," she wrote.
"Among the rights which the government has violated are: his right to due process, his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, his right to counsel and his right to a grand jury," she continued.
In February 2005, a federal district judge in South Carolina ruled that Padilla could not be indefinitely detained and ordered the United States to either charge or release him. After the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision in September 2005, Padilla appealed to the Supreme Court. Just before the Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced at a November 22, 2005, press conference that a federal grand jury in Florida had indicted Padilla on terrorism-related charges unconnected to the original allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot. In response, Padilla's legal team accused the Bush administration of "clearly trying to evade Supreme Court review."
On August 16, 2007, Padilla was found guilty of conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim overseas and conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists.
From Blankley's February 12 Washington Times column:
During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records. And the administration did so, in a limited way, because it rightly deemed these restrictions in America's national security interests. Bush's steps were modest, yet liberal journalists reacted as if he were the reincarnation of Stalin, or, more to their taste, Hitler.
Meh, not the strongest post. Certainly Blankley conveniently neglected to mention a huge counterpoint to his argument, but he did qualify his statement by saying "largely".
I think the post-9/11 era of constitutionally-dubious methods of surveillance will be debated for decades to come, and it's difficult to navigate the gray area of losing freedoms/privacy vs staying safe. The Padilla issue (and he's a bad, bad guy) was in my opinion the most blatant violation of the Constitution during the Bush II administration.
it's difficult to navigate the gray area of losing freedoms/privacy vs staying safe
No, it really isn't.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
No truer, or more American, sentiment has ever been spoken.
During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence.
OK, if you say so, Blanky. Of course, when asserting that BushCo. rolled back very few of our civil liberties, it's best to keep in mind that those are only the ones we know of so far.And those guys won't be remembered for being above board with much of their program.
...liberal journalists reacted as if [Bush] were the reincarnation of Stalin, or, more to their taste, Hitler.
What the hell does that mean? Hitler is more to the taste of liberal journalists? Or Stalin is, so comparisons to Hitler are a worse insult? These guys have just given up trying to make any sense.
Funny, isn't it? Another dig claiming liberals are always calling conservatives nazi's (and a healthy dose of indignation, too) yet no mention whatsoever of them always calling liberals nazi's. We just had another example of that last week, and no journalist challenged it.
I think it's their usual lame attempt to say that liberals secretly support Commie dictators.
Did I type "we should give up ESSENTIAL liberty to stay safe?" Didn't I type "The Padilla issue (and he's a bad, bad guy) was in my opinion the most blatant violation of the Constitution ", the right to fair and speedy trial being one of our most essential liberties?
Essential sure is a loaded word in the Franklin's quote, isn't it?
How about warrantless wiretapping? Is the 4th ammendment not as essential as the 6th?
How about torture? Is the 8th ammendment not as essential as the other 2?
Compared to the actual threat to my (or anyone else's) LIFE posed by Iraq, pre-invasion, Bush's threat to our liberty is several orders of magnitude worse.
I think is was Limbaugh (though there have been others) that echoed the sentiment that "You can't have civil liberties if your dead." Well... according to the Bush philosophy, apparantly I can't have them if I'm alive either! THAT'S the point of the Franklin quote. You give up one for the other, you lose both.
Besides... if I'm killed in a terrorist attack as a consequence of us NOT torturing, NOT spying on our own people w/o warrants and NOT detaining anyone indefinitely w/o charge or trial... then I will have died defending freedom, liberty and american values every bit as much as the soldier who dies in the battlefields of the middle east. Anyone who would NOT be willing to make that trade off is a COWARD and a TRAITOR to AMERICAN VALUES.
And just so we're clear, I'm not taking aim at YOU, or calling you a con, pub, bushie or rushie. But when I see someone refer to the "gray area" of security vs. liberty, as you did, I feel an almost religious pull to obliterate that sentiment.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater (-R, and his idea of "Liberty" differed greatly from that of the modern Republican party.) (And though I'm sure it differs somewhat from my own, the sentiment still holds true,)
Wouldn't it be great if the GOP today were Goldwater conservatives? I think put to practical use it would be a failure in today's global economy and society, but at least it would be CONSISTENT. Goldwater decried big gov/big spending regardless of his purpose (not a prayer he supports the invasion of Iraq), and although I can't find the citation on gays, I read that he strongly opposed denying constitutional rights to homosexuals, minorities and women, although again, the boundaries of "rights" provided by the constitution are much narrower than yours or mine.
Todya Goldwater would be aligned with the Libertarian wing of the party. Which is the wing that I related to, back I called myself a republican. He had plenty to say about the negative influence on both the country and the Republican party that the religious right has had. Check it out:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
There's too many to pick from to put one here - every one is a beaut. And to think: he was considered a hard-right-winger is his day!!! The world has progressed so much, and yet compared to the modern day Republicans, Goldwater's practically a liberal!
We don't have to give up any of our liberties to be safe. We had a bunch of paranoid freaks and/or masochists running our government.
well i mean ignoring the fact that a US citizen was falsly accused and held in violation of his rights, i guess you could make the claim that civil liberties being rolled back were limited.
but i have a problem. see i recall the Bush administration got called out about the fact that they could listen in and view every phone call, email, on line site, at any given time for any reason WITHOUT A WARRANT. hmmm sounds like a BIG violation of my civil liberties.
now i dont have anything to hide, but it upsets me a bit knowing that whenever i call, email or im my fiancee who lives an hour's drive away from me, that someone, working for the government for no reason at all could read what we said to each other, and listen to what we talked about. i thought i had a right to privacy? how is this not infringing on my right to privacy?
the answer clearly is that it is infringing on my right to privacy. now i know people will say, well this would apply to you. well whats to stop someone from deciding it does. what if there is someone i knew from some point in my life who had an axe to grind with me, and had to ability to listen in and determine if someone is a terrorist or not, says " ya know what, i never liked this guy and im going to put him away" and does so, even though im a citzen and have done nothing wrong, and im falsly held without charges, tried outside of the legal system and falsely accused of something i never would have dreamed of doing. and yet this is all possible because the Bush administration put everything in place to do just that. they can say "no one can be falsely accused here, we are sure of it" they can say that but they cant control some mid level guy who holds a grudge and decides to abuse the system. im sure it woul dbe very easy for someone to abuse it, thats the problem i have with it. it should not be there. PERIOD.
While "regime" is technically correct, I believe the word he intended to use is "regimen."
Although President Bush certainly managed to establish a regime.
During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence.
That "whirring" noise you hear is the Founding Fathers, in unison, rolling over in their graves.
Must suck to be so scared all the time, Tony.
Is Lincoln spinning? Or is he AGREEING? His actions in the Civil War would indicate the latter.
Is Lincoln considered a "Founding Father"?
Civil War/War on Terror: Apples/Oranges. Try again.
I don't think there are any Taliban armies marching up the Potomac.
Lincoln is spinning due to what modern day Republicans have done to the ideals that his party was founded on.
Conservatives seem to always use very subjective terms to justify their use of power. Because the "War on Terror" is so open ended watime could last indefinitely. And how much do they plan to curtail civil liberties to guarantee "national security"? It was much the same in the McCarthy era.
I agree with the fact that the "war on terror" is a baseless and vague term which was used by Bush to advance an agend. I also think that the core issue here is that during the Bush administration the constitution WAS violated. Whether the Patriot Act really did infringe on civil liberties or not may be debated, but since the laws in place violated the rights of U.S. citizens, the Padilla case is irrevelant.
Basically I'm saying that since Bush did pass the Patriot Act, he violated the rights of citizens regardless of whether there were individual cases where rights were infringed.
The "gray area" i was referring to above that Eddie took exception with is when you have those who are openly advocating the overthrow of our way of life and political system. I'm not talking about "sympathizers", I'm talking about people who are active communists or terrorists fighting against the US, etc. If they're US citizens, they have the same due process rights as any other citizen...but we can't civil liberty ourselves out of existence.
"but we can't civil liberty ourselves out of existence"
Well, that's true, but there has to be a balance somewhere, don't you think? Can we not be secure and civilized at the same time?
Of course. I'm reeeeaaaally not here to defend the Bush Administration. At all.
those who are openly advocating the overthrow of our way of life and political system
Funny... from my POV (and that of many here) that's exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do for the last eight years.
we can't civil liberty ourselves out of existence
So true. We can't. It's impossible. Only the destruction of civil liberties can threaten our exsistance. (Or for that matter our system of government or our way of life.)
"Funny... from my POV (and that of many here) that's exactly what the Republicans have been trying to do for the last eight years."
But you don't think Al Qaida is too?
No. Al Quaeda has destoryed some lives and some buildings. Buildings can be rebuilt, and lives (as horrible as this is to admit) will all end anyway. YES, I'd rather that any given life ends LATER rather than SOONER, but our LIVES will ALL end. CIVIL LIBERTIES and the VALUES and PRINCIPLAES that this country was built upon must OUTLAST just our lives. They are meant to endure forever, well after you and I and everyone who will ever die as a result of war or terror are long gone. They must protect every generation of American yet to come. We must not doom their liberty, just because we are afraid.
I'll say it again: Only the U.S.Government has the power to destroy these liberties. Al Queada can kill a few thousand people, but our Government and ONLY our gov't can destroy the liberty of hundereds of millions of us. And it's those liberties that MAKE THIS COUNTRY GREAT! To destory (or betray) these principals in order to save our lives, or our "way of life," destroys them anyway, and even if it didn't - it would save them only at the cost of what makes them WORTH SAVING.
Facing an enemy like Al-Qaueda requies courage. It require the corage to NOT LET the government, in a panic, take away those protections that make this country great. Corage to NOT LET some of the citizens, in their fear, give the government back the power that the Constitution takes from it. Once they have it, we'll never have it back. It takes courage to live free, my friend. And that's the only way Al-Quaede can destroy our liberty: the weapon of FEAR. They can make us so AFRAID that we no longer wnat to live free.
I'm not afraid to live free. And I'm not afraid to die defending my freedom. I don't WANT to (die)... But I'd rather live and die free, then live under even well intentioned tyranny.
"I'll say it again: Only the U.S.Government has the power to destroy these liberties."
Yes. The only entity that can bring down this country is our government. People running around in caves can't do that.
That response deserves a round of applause!
Well said.
I've tried making similar arguments to our Conservatve friends, but they just can't seem to wrap their black and white thinking around the concept. It's like trying to explain that banning flag burning curtails the very freedom that our flag represents.
They just don't get it.
Bravo, Eddie. Perfectly said!
That just might be the very best post I have seen on this site, well said. Your sentiments were both very pertinent and well presented. And since I am a lousy speller, it was nice to see someone else miss a few LOL
Fantastically said!
And I notice that there haven't been any neocon responses at all. I'm not surprised.
You wrote "...but we can't civil liberty ourselves out of existence." This is such a weak point to try to make!
When the American citizens took on the Mother Country, they had the most powerful military on the planet. Our Founding Fathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for Liberty. What did Patrick Henry say? "Give me Liberty or give me death!"
Today's right wingnutz will happily sacrifice that precious liberty for a false security.
As Bill Moyers so beautifully pointed out, the new American nation was huddled on the shores of a hostile continent. We were surrounded by enemies. We had just taken on a very powerful country. Yet we wrote our Constitution with these essential Liberties in the face of all that.
Now we are the most powerful nation on earth. And we give up those Liberties so willingly?
As Al Franken said, "Wow!"
Good points. The "War on Terror(ism)" is very much like the "War on Drugs". It is likely to drag on in some form forever.
The enemy is not a nation state; they aren't even a cohesive network or any other kind of entity. Al Qaeda is an organization of sorts, but not all terrorists belong to it. Even if we kill all of its members, can we really say that all terrorism is defeated? Of course not.
They need to figure out a new way to classify those whom we capture in this fight. Unlike previous conventional wars, there will be no armistice or treaty upon which to release all prisoners, so "prisoner of war" status is not really practical or accurate.
I know that the Troglodytes want to just lock them up indefinitely, even without proof of wrongdoing. Can we really do that and maintain the moral high ground, or do they think the moral high ground is too costly?
It's been the same since the BEGINNING OF TIME. Whether it was King George or King Herrod. The "state" percieves a threat to the "liberty" of its people, so it takes away that liberty in order to protect it. (So who's the real threat to our liberty? Al Quaeda or the US Government? I'll give y'all a hint: Which one actually HAS and HAS USED the power to take away our liberty? And then ask yourselves which PARTY has done more to take away liberty, and which has done more to restore it.) (And CHRISTIANITY does not equal LIBERTY. Liberty safeguards religion, not the other way around!)
Who are these liberal journalists he's referring to? I don't recall many journalists, liberal or otherwise, saying sh!t about the Bush admins infringement on civil liberties. Plenty of bloggers sure but few in the MSM.
Agreed. I recall a deafening silence from the MSM on most of the Bush scandals.
But they were all over Monica Lewinsky's dress.... yessiree!
Well, let's face it: Monica Lewinsky represented a serious threat to our national... I mean, she represented a serious constitutional... Oh hell, I can't even JOKE about taking that "scadal" seriously. :P
Since Padilla is innocent, I am sure Obama will be releasing him soon? If this guy is so innocent, why hasn't Obama given him a pardon?
Nobody suggested he should get a pardon. A TRIAL would have been nice though. (After all, if he's so GUITLY: why hasn't he been convicted?)
He had a trial and WAS convicted.
On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. On August 16, 2007, José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism.
As noted, he was convicted. I think the point isn't just that nobody suggested he should get a pardon, it's that nobody has suggested he was innocent. The point has always been that he should be given a speedy trial instead of detained for years, whatever the result turns out to be.
You forget, republicans hate lawyers too. They don't want a trial because they are afraid lawyers will stack the jury with ignorant terrorist sympathizers who will say the terrorist on trial is innocent regardless of evidence. And they will use O.J. as proof of their claims, regardless of the lack of similarity in the two cases.
Yes. Exactly.
I couldn't remember if he was tried or not, and was to lazy (or busy - yeah, we'll go with that!) to look it up. But you've got it spot on. The point is that he should have have a trial up front, and then be left to rot in prison for (whatevermany years) AFTER the trial. (As opposed to before or wiothout one.)
He was convicted, but I'm not convinced that he's guilty. Maybe he is, but the evidence seems pretty thin. Another weird thing: on the last day, the jury wore coordinated outfits so that there was one row each of Red White and Blue. I'm all for patriotism, but I think that crosses the line into Jingoism.
Nice straw man. You right wingers make me laugh. I have another friend of mine, and he's always going on about how Obama hasn't rolled back the domestic spying stautes. Completely ignoring that it was his guy, dubya, that put them into place. When I point that out, its like talking to a wall. he just repeats himself. It must be nice to get by by ignoring reality.
Weak. Nobody is saying that Padilla is innocent; we're saying he has civil rights. Figure out the difference.
Warning, the following statement is absurd, but follows wingnut logic.
There's nothing in the constitution about protecting us from terrorists. The war on terror was used as an excuse to expand governmental power over the population. Having the government fight terrorists is just part of the socialistic take over of our inalienable rights and functions.
%oP
Largely? Largely? Largely? You people are sick!