June 23 is Kelo Day

At least stop, next Monday, for a moment of silence to commemorate the travesty from our Supreme Court.

Fight Against Eminent Domain Abuse

From the wiki on Kelo:

So those guys are on record as regarding the well being of the community as paramount to individual rights of US Citizens. You'd think so, right?

Not if that individual is not a US citizen and being held as an unlawful enemy combatant! THEN, the individual rights reign uber alles.

Perfectly clear... if not to me, then to the touchy-feely types.

 

I agree that it was a terrible decision since it will give non US citizen enemy combatants a right to our justice system (and this will potentially tie up our justice system, leaving it less efficient for American citizens). However, there is one part of this I dont understand and which could make a difference to me. It was my understanding that US citizens can be declared "enemy combatants" so that they can be detained indefinitely without being charged. Maybe that is what is at the root of this decision.

 

Well, there's 'nuance' a'plenty in the issue. But yuou need to be more specific... in the domestic cases, citizen or not, the justice system has been applied.

In cases of US citizens taken on foreign soil, then I argue for the wording of the Geneva Convention. I dont think UCMJ has a damn thing to do with it, otherwise.

It all comes down to when you engage in hostilities against a national power, you damn well better be wearing a uniform as part of a national military. Otherwise you're subject to immediate summary execution by one of the combatants or the other.

May not like it... but that applies to the French Resistance in WWII, or to the plotline of the movie, Red Dawn. May seem harsh but that's the way it has to be.
Apply it to how many German spies/saboteurs lived more than a week after being captured coming ashore here, against the German POW's in camps across the US.
And that's what the immediate first reaction of this decision will be.

 

Of course you cant see it, even though I explained the {contradictory} connection quite well. It goes against your political sensibilities.

Socialists dont give a fuck about the little guy except when they can use it/him as a way to 'change America'
And Kennedy is a favorite on the DC cocktail circuit. He likes that.

 

To me the connection is the few for the sake of the many in regard to basic rights. The sad irony being that when the decision protected the few, it was non US citizens benefiting at the expense of potential peril to the US citizen masses (Scalia warned of this danger in his dissent).

 

A dangerous power to give to the EXECUTIVE, Don? where the executive, for better or worse, is answerable to the public?

Better it should be granted to the LIFETIME appointed!!!!!!

What's said was this compared to the likes of Roe v Wade, which was 2 opinion removed from anything in the Constitution.

This ranks right there with Dred Scott, I'm thinking. Going for the popular without regard to consequences.

Just to clear up Don's dissembling: Here's the rules:

1. If you are part of a military in combatant zone and not in uniform you can be shot.

2. If you are a civilian and wearing a military uniform unlawfully, you can be shot.
- it's that freakin' clear. so anything else is like a stay of execution.

Don and I went through Military Boot Camp classes on the UCMJ and Geneva Convention about the same point in time. Amazing how our take differs.

And 'who's the socialist? Dont make me laugh! You gotta admit to at least ONE.

 

Don, I was only saying that I saw Petty's connection.

I understand these cases need to be decided on merit and precedent. I did admit that I while I disagree based on what has been said by both sides, I dont fully understand the case or the applicable law.

 

I think its a fair point. Its a contradiction of of gov't over individual and then individual over government. Only problem there fog is your guilty of the same contradiction only in the reverse!

You favor the good of society when it pertains to accused terrorists at the cost of the individual yet you favor the rights of the individual over the good of society when it pertains to eminent domain. So what gives?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as enemy combatants are concerned. I can't stand the idea of anyone being picked up and held indefinitely without council or trial. That can so easily be abused. The government can then pick you up for anything and accuse you with anything or everything yet charge you with none of it. You'd have absolutely no way to defend and disprove it without any kind of hearing or council. Thats wrong.

 

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!! Don's correct, you ARE perceptive. But since that view is neo-con, it confuses many who arent. It certainly confused Don

So let's examine the possible end results of each view.

When the community is under attack, esp by a small group, ultimately a choice may have to be made.
This is an imperfect example so try to follow:
One class seems to think that the community is under attack by those who use illicit drugs or allow underage drinking in their homes. To counter the practice they've incorporated non-judicial confiscation of property involved, incidental or not.
- under the premise that one involved in such endangered public safety.

50 Years ago Eminent Domain seizure interpreted 'for good of the community' meant it was allowed in cases where the resulting work was available for all. It was used extensively in the Interstate Highway projects and has been used for parks schools or even some cases government buildings.
- Now land is confiscated from the individual under the premise that increased tax revenue is a 'work for the public good'

Let's note that the danger to the community by the former is reflected by increase in random intersection of the violator and one or a few innocents. Yet no one can bother to protest much against the violation of the stated prohibition against illegal seizure.

The premise that increased tax revenue justifies seizure of property USE {I say use because there is SOME compensation} by fiat of the government may be redressed by ouster of the offending officials of that government. Thus overreaching has consequences.

The seizure of goods and properties under the former case is far less likely to result in ouster of the overreaching officials. Thus the few who fell under the practice have little to no effect on the continued practice. Overreaching has no consequences.

Now let's look at what's happened in the WOT... and the likely results as we see them unfold.

In the cases where those accused of planning attacks on the US public were taken on US soil, they have been subject to judicial process. In the cases where they were taken on foreign soil, they have not. In fact the prisoners have been held under the presumption of guilt, subject to review under military tribunal.
This has been especially remarked on as some undoubtedly fell into the net by reason of monetary gain or even for being disliked by some around them.

An imperfect situation? Certainly! But the point is that there were grounds for that presumption of guilt and the aggrieved fall under the mercy of their captors. If the detained truly were only in the wrong place at the wrong time, what would be the point in detaining them longer? Doing so would only increase the need for resources better used in dealing with those more likely guilty.
So I think it could be argued any egregious harm to the wrongly detained is a result of bureaucratic imperfection.

Further it can be argued that many of those innocent fish caught up, were indeed released quickly. For the remainder, it can also be argued that what happened to them is far from unusual practice of their local governments.
Now here's the rub. The view that 'We are better than their practices and we should be held to a higher standard' places our community at an even greater handicap, considering this is 'assymetrical' war at the outset.

The Geneva Convention addressed that when they stipulated the same as I said above:

If you illegally wear a uniform, or you are undertaking military action, NOT wearing a uniform, you have no standing under international law.

So what does this have to do with anything?

Let's go back to the situation where a drug dealer is renting a house from an owner who might be suspected of knowing what that person does? The owner is at the mercy, not of the courts, but of the law enforcement officials. Seldom has an imprper seizure been redressed in a proper court, because the law specifically allows seizure and disposal by the Agency, ex parte.

That's an extreme example but it has happened. Far more usual is the case where a motorist is stopped for a minor infraction, found to have marijuana on his person then his vehicle confiscated and sold, without his even going to court for the offense.
Where's the outrage there? That's a citizen of the US!

"Well, one's just property, the other is life and liberty!" Really? Where is the line drawn? There's no provision for the debt incurred. Is not the victim's life altered by the injustice?

So, I guess, in the end, 'Shit Happens' is the operative phrase, right?

Remember what I said about the heart-rending, or heart-warming plot of Red Dawn? Or the fate of French Resistance agents captured?

Both require standing back a little and looking at the ultimate outcomes; instead of focussing on the individual injustices and basing your actions on them.

 

Good post pfog. Your views on this are clearly well grounded on this one.

I guess the only thing I'd like to respond to is the point highlighted above. Since there inevitably is bureaucratic imperfection, and I don't think its unfair to say that due to various factors the military has A LOT of bureaucratic imperfection, then there will inevitably be those who are wrongly detained. Its essential then that checks be in place to correct those bureaucratic imperfections and free those wrongly detained. In the case of the Guantanamo detainees my attitude is; why not the US justice system? If these are the open and shut case terrorists they're so often made out to be then the prosecution shouldn't have any troubles. I recognize the trouble in that is the precedent of allowing all forigen fighters held on US soil access to the US justice system is problematic for many reasons.

You point out that the precedent for those taken on foreign soil is the military tribunal. I don't know the ins and outs of military tribunals and can not judge if those are adequate checks on the bureaucratic imperfections. But they must be subject to at least this and in a somewhat timely matter. If were committed to justice then we can't take people, let them rot in Guantanamo and subject them to god knows what for five years or more before giving them a chance to defend themselves. Another tough balance to find.

 

Ask Rumsfeld.


While not in total agreement, good post fog.