EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Susan Collins Spreads Central Myth About the Constitution
Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse: namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda.
First, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim.
What divided the Boumediene Court was the question of whether foreigners held by the U.S. military outside of the U.S. (as opposed to inside the U.S.) enjoy Constitutional protections. They debated how Guantanamo should be viewed in that regard (as foreign soil or something else). But not even the 4 dissenting judges believed -- as Susan Collins and other claim -- that Constitutional rights only extend to Americans. To the contrary, Justice Scalia, in his scathing dissent, approvingly quoted Justice Jackson in conceding that foreigners detained inside the U.S. are protected by the Constitution (emphasis added):
Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ:
"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . . . .
"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." Id., at 770-771.
That's from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ -- not even Antonin Scalia -- believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. -- not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.
The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court -- all the way back in 1886 -- explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution. Just read what the Court said back then, as it should settle this matter forever (emphasis added):
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Could that possibly be any clearer? Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over. Only extreme ignorance or a true desire to deceive would lead someone like Susan Collins to claim that such rights are "protection[s] our Constitution guarantees American citizens."
Second, basic common sense by itself should prevent people like Susan Collins from claiming the Constitution applies only to American citizens. There are millions of foreign nationals inside the U.S. at all times -- not only illegally but also legally: as tourists, students, workers, Green Card holders, etc. Is there anyone who really believes that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them? If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, does anyone believe they can be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel? Anyone who claims that the Constitution only protects American citizens, but not foreigners, would necessarily have to claim that the U.S. Government could do all of that to foreign nationals. Does anyone believe that? Would it be Constitutionally permissible to own foreigners as slaves on the ground that the protections of the Constitution -- including the Thirteenth Amendment -- apply only to Americans, not foreigners?
Third, to see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about "citizens." To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech"; "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner"). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in "citizens," but rather in "persons" or "the accused" ("No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense").
The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons." Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not "persons," then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?
There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens -- such as the right to vote or to hold elective office -- but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so ("The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . ."). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between "citizens" (which only includes "Americans") and "persons" (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article II, Section 1 -- in defining eligibility to be President -- makes the same distinction:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;
"Persons" and "citizens" have entirely different meanings in the Constitution. There are a handful of instances in which the Constitution applies only to American citizens. When that is the case, the Constitution explicitly uses the word "citizens." In all other instances, it simply restricts what the Government is permitted to do generally or uses the much broader term "persons" to describe who holds the rights it guarantees. That's the obvious point the Yick Wo Court made in 1886 in holding "these provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction," and it ought to prevent the most minimally honest individuals among us from claiming otherwise, as Susan Collins just did.
It's certainly true that, even after Boumediene, there is a viable debate over whether so-called alien "enemy combatants" held outside of the U.S. are entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections (of course, that debate ignores the unanswerable question: how do you know someone is an "enemy combatant" -- let alone a "Terrorist" -- if they don't first have a trial?). There are also instances (such as deportation hearings) where the due process rights to which foreign nationals are entitled are less stringent than standard rights guaranteed in criminal trials (becuase foreign nationals have no Constitutional right to be admitted entrance to the U.S.).
But this right-wing demagoguery (coming from both Republicans and some Democrats) has nothing to do with those debates. For one thing, the accused Christmas Day bomber was captured and is being held inside the U.S. (right-wing fear-mongerers have long argued that we should not bring GITMO detainees to the U.S. because, once inside the U.S., they would then enjoy full Constitutional protections). But more important, the standard rhetorical formulation being used -- "extending rights to foreign Terrorists which the Constitution reserves for U.S. citizens" -- suggests that Constitutional rights are for American citizens only. That is blatantly false, and anyone making that claim -- as Susan Collins and so many others have -- is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
63 Comments so far
Show AllBy approving the October 2006 addition to the patriot act that took the right to due process (habeas corpus) away from "enemy combatants", Congress made serious inroads to taking constitutional rights away from "non-citizens", AND THE REST OF US.
Keep in mind that if one person in America does not have right to due process, neither do the other 308 million people living in the US. To wit:
The first step in due process is your right to be represented by counsel. Once you lose THAT RIGHT, whoever is detaining you is under no obligation to allow you to identify yourself as somebody other than an "enemy combatant". Consequently, you or any of the other 308 million people living in, or visiting the US can be accused of being an "enemy combant" and you have no right to prove otherwise. It is your word against theirs, so they can detain you forever by calling you an "enemy combatant".
Either we are all entitled to due process or none of us is. There is no in-between.
Collins' action is fascism in its most pure form.
Yes, the US president decides unilaterally that someone, anyone is an "enemy combatant" and the US court decided that "enemy ocmpatants" were not "persons". So, obviously, anyone, American or non-American, can be kidnapped, tortured, held indefinitely, or murdered, as recently happened in Guantanamo to the three victims of "suicide", according to the US supreme court.
I find it incredibly sad that so very many of our citizens, including Seenators and Congressspeople, do not have a clue about what our Constitution is. It seems that it is no longer taught in high schoold. I know I am old, but I learned in my Junior year aa recap of what I learned in 7th grade that our government is made up of 3 separate, but equal parts - Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches.
This is not rocket science - why can't it still be taught???
Corporations made sure politicians dumbed down the education system to the point that a kid graduating from high school knows little or nothing about government, let alone economics, finance, negotiation or anything that might improve critical thinking skills.
Teachers who teach such skills are shown the door post haste.
Democracy depends upon an educated electorate. An educated electorate would never have elected 90% of the polticians that have been elected during the past 50 years.
Not a big Jay Leo fan mind you but one segment I cannot get myself to watch no matter how much I want to get to sleep is his "Jay-walking" bits where he asks the simplest questions of passers by on the street. Mostly it seems college students at UCLA. I mean the answers are so inane it makes my skin crawl. Do they teach NOTHING even in the colleges anymore?
Gary
"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
-- Amos Bronson Alcott
Wait - the Constitution applies to HUMAN BEINGS?? When did this happen?? I thought you had to be a corporation....
Another Constitutional myth which was started by Bush and now being propagated by Obomba is the position that the President of the United States' primary responsibility is to "protect the people of the United States." The actual wording is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oath of office for the President is to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.
I wish Obomba would stop with the Bushian disinformation and propaganda.
Another fallacious assertion is that of full-time Commander in Chiefhood.
The Constitution clearly states that the president will be CiC of the combined armed forces when these are called into "actual service".
In other words, AFTER the necessary Congressional declaration of war.
(Abe Lincoln argued that the war against Mexico was unconstitutional because it was instigated by then-president Polk. I leave it up to others to decide if Lincoln's war was legal.)
"Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. "
Don't you yet realize all this Republican Democrat crap is nothing more than Bad Cop Good Cop.
Dick Cheney Loves Obomber, I mean how could he not, he is doing exactly what W was doing except without having all the Anti-War Protestors on the Streets. I mean they even changed the name so you no longer hear about the WAR On TERROR - Its almost as it doesn't exist (here in America, to the Obedient little Serfs) While Obomber is asking for the LARGEST Defense Budget Ever, He is going to have and Use the Most DRONE PLANES ever.
Cheney gets on TV bashing Obomber so the Republican Serfs can say see we Hate Obomber
and the Democrat serfs can say See the Republicans hate everything Obomber does. But in reality, for the Dems and Repubs in Power the Cheneys and the Obombers, they are toasting each other in Private over how many People they Blew Up in the Middle East in the Name of the American Interest.
It's a Friggin' joke. Whether or Not this collins person is on the ins of this is irrelevant really. This person is a tool of the system, a serf. They are there to fire up the people on Main St. to keep us divided and fighting each other, while they are fighting WARS, for each other on the Same team.
People, seriously, step back and ask yourself how different Obombers WAR Policy is than Bush was or Clinton or BUSH senior, Its The Same Damn Plan with a Different person spewing off the lies.
And because Obomber is so nice and such a good articulate speaker (or reader) and since he is a Democrat and not just another Old White Fart. Because Obomber is all this and because he changed the name of the War on Terror to whatever the heck he calls it, it's like it isn't there, no more protests (except from us Libertarians and Anarchists) the opposition is gone, except for those so-called tea-baggers who are anti-Obomber but like their democrat counter parts obviously not Anti-WAR.
Fight WAR
NOT Wars!
peace. love. anarchy.
"all this Republican Democrat crap is nothing more than Bad Cop Good Cop"
more like bad cop, worse cop.
and The War Against Terror is/are now Overseas Contigencies - unless it has CHANGED again.
or bad cop, insane cop
Okay, you are correct. So how bout we just say; Two Insane cops! Thats even better, I guess.
Good cop/Bad cop.
Bad cop/Insane cop.
What does it matter?
Either way it is an ACT!
Collins knows that what she's saying, or implying, is BS, but she's saying it anyway because it works, i.e. it fools enough of the people enough of the time to win elections. This is all theatre and the politicians are the actors.
Don't be too sure about that, bgcd February 1st, 2010 3:27 pm. It's not necessary to be intelligent or well-informed to be in Congress -- you just have to have the money, a nice smile, show your party loyalty, and cultivate or be born with the right connections. (And the smile is just frosting.) For proof I offer this short list: Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the current GOP cover boy Scott Brown who was described by a classmate as a "big dumb jock" in college. I don't know much about Collins, but she impresses me as someone who might lose a Q-Tip in her ear as it's sucked into the vast vacuum within. I think she's just regurgitating Frank Luntz talking points and has no idea what the Constitution says.
I'm saddened. I mean, I knew it all along, but still......
During the years I lived in Maine I had some grudging admiration for Susan Collins. She seemed to be accessible to the people there. She made herself available every week, even when in Washington, to let radio listeners know what she was working on. I liked that. But over the past couple of years, and since I left Maine and perhaps have a clearer vision, it's been disappointment after disappointment. She could have been something special. Instead she's sold her soul just like the rest of them.
Naive I know.
That's OK.
Just don't let it happen again. ;)
· Yr Obd't Servant
Not naive, blythespirit.
I think we all know the goodness of which we are truly capable and I think we've all had at least a few glimpses of what is possible when people join together in the service of the greater good.
I'm very disappointed in Susan Collins having heard her nasty little screed on the radio no fewer than four times in my first 90 waking minutes last Saturday morning. It was a very weird experience to say the very least.
Yes, she has sold her soul just like the rest of them. That doesn't make you, or any of us, naive, though.
If we do not manage to hang on to our faith in goodness we will surely go mad in this world, don't you think?
I am so disgusted these days I could scream. But I'm NOT GIVING UP.
Cheers,
Deborah
Boston, MA
Thanks Mr. Greenwald for a very interesting article.
Glenn Greenwald's brilliant when he writes about law and politics, but I think he's overestimating the average Congress-Creature. Many of them don't know the Constitution but, even if they did, they'd quickly ignore it to put an extra dollar in their pocket, which is what usually occurs. Unfortunately for our country, politics and the upper echelons of the corporate hierarchy attract sociopathic personalities, and the ruthless, remorseless lack of conscience of the sociopath excels in those realms. And is there any doubt that the five Supreme Court justices who just approved of that bizarre legal monstrosity that allows corporations all of the rights of flesh-and-blood people are self-serving sociopaths as well? They may know what the Constitution says, but they don't give a rip -- they're serving a higher master -- the plutocracy of money, or the plutocracy of money disguised as ideology or religion. Every generation has its vipers; ours run the country and our media and make pretense to morality and ethics.
There are no terrorists worthy of the name outside the national intelligence agencies.
"The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are "persons."
The SCOTUS is way ahead of you, GG - surprised you didn't remember:
"the Court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law."
But a Corporation - now that is a 'person.' Human detainee not charged with a crime? Not a person. Corporation? Person.
We've left Bizzaro World and are now heading for Cuckoo Universe...
frank1569: Quite so, but Professor Greenwald's memory ("didn't remember") is even worse than you describe. On this web site last Thursday, Greenwald revealed (at the end of a long article about Alito's behavior) that he, Greenwald, "partially" supports the Citizens United vs. FEC decision (the recent decision affirming corporate personhood, and on that basis unlimited corporate financing of an entire class of political advertising). Glenn Greenwald's opinions as to the applicability of the US Constitution should therefore come with a skull-and-crossbones warning label.
soloduff February 1st, 2010 4:43 pm -- Let's be fair. Greenwald's error, and I agree it was a clever but mistaken idea, was to extend freedom further than it should be extended; he would never favor LIMITING freedom as Collins does. And he admitted his point was arguable.
greenwald writes: "It's certainly true that, even after Boumediene, there is a viable debate over whether so-called alien "enemy combatants" held outside of the U.S. are entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections."
I do not find this debate viable. All such suspects are held by agents of the United States who derive their authority - and livelihood! - from the Constitution and owe all due attention and allegiance to the principals therein, irregardless of their geographical location.
(I also argue that any mercenary employed by the United States is subject to the same responsibilities.)
Does it make sense that the writers of the US constitution intended to allow the US government to circumvent the protections afforded by the constitution by simply flying prisoners away to secret prisons?
no - the airplane hadn't been invented yet.
lol
But there was no doubt how the American govermment of two centuries ago felt about human beings being shanghaied by foreign powers to work essentially as slaves in their navies. Denying Americans rights and holding them incommunicado in foreign lands, or on foreign ships at sea, was denounced as barbarous, savage and cruel by our government at the time. I'm sure if our citizens had been seized on the battlefield, or elsewhere, and been detained and tortured without trial or access to a lawyer, their reaction would have been the same.
Yeah, well that is not the case. Laws of the land you are IN apply to you first and formost then those of your parent country... maybe...
In this case, clearly, the accused was in the US and has all the rights an American would have under the law. 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause. No debate what so ever in legal circles.
In Guantanamo? There is debate there, but not on US soil.
IF, and only if, a foreign "enemy" is captured on foreign soil might I acquiesce to them being held and tried on foreign soil by a military tribunal. When any person is captured on US soil (or in US territorial waters or in the skies above US soil), be that person foreign or a US citizen, that person DESERVES the rights granted by the Constitution of these United States.
Consider, today we're talking about "enemy combatants" as it is defined in the "war on terror". What will happen when the government broadens it's perspective and says that they're authorizing 'rendition' for "enemy combatants" in the war on drugs, or the war on poverty?
These people who are so afraid of allowing the Constitution to work scare me more than some of the "terrorists". I've always supported Susan Collins and feel that she's supported her constituents here in Maine with honor. It pains me to see her align herself with the ultra-right wing. Back in the late 40's and early 50's during the McCarthy era, it was the legislators spreading fear and the media unwilling to stand up against it. Today, we have right wing talk show hosts setting the agenda and it is the legislature afraid to stand up to THEM. Flip side of the same coin. It must stop before the brown shirts create another crystalnacht.
The Republicans no longer represent the home of the brave. We fought the Third Reich, one of the most evil regimes in history. We fought, supposedly, to protect freedom and our principles. We were not afraid to give the Nazi criminals rights, a lawyer, trial and justice. Why are they so afraid now?
They say it is because the terrorists do not deserve these things and they behead people and do awful things. Well, if my memory serves me correctly, the Nazis were not the best hosts to prisoners in death camps.
The real reason is the right is beholding to the Military Induatrial Complex as well as Big Oil. cheney and the other neocons at the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam and divide the oil in 1998...LOOK IT UP.(Project for a New American Century.) They also like the idea of privatizing the military with no bid contracts that cost us billions and billions more on defense contracts.
Sadly, Americans have been duped into believing their spin. They allow BIG GOVT to protect us from terrorists at the expense of our rights, budget and principles (read the Geneva Convention) Benjamin Franklin said something like He who will give up rights for security deserves neither. I bet you will not hear that on Corporate talk radio.Our veterans died for freedom and US principles. Don't let the corporate owned right wing insult their bravery.
Greenwald sez: "If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, does anyone believe they can be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel?"
***
Well, yes.
George Carlin once riffed about the myth of "rights," and in particular those enumerated in the US Constitution.
He may not have been a Constitutional scholar, but he knew enough to say, there are NO rights, just temporary privleges, because they can be suspended or taken away at any time.
See: US citizens, no less, of Japanese ancestry, circa 1942-1945.
Thus: Auf Flugeln des Gesanges.
(apologies to Felix Mendelssohn)
Mr. Greenwald said: "That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim."
That is the point. Who would apply the word "responsible" to a Republican Senator.?
GG is spot on in much of what I have read that he has written. Must be a slow news day and I am sorry he wasted his time pointing out the obvious.
Susan Collins give the commencement address at my daughters high school, the Maine School for Science and Mathematics. The school is in way northern Maine the area she represents, which has a large born again and republican population that still thinks the earth is flat and Noah fought off T rex , leaving him behind. Poor Susan if you ever heard her speak you can see how she thinks, she has her own special ed slur. She is an adorable parrot who repeats the republican manta the best she can.
At my daughters graduation, not well attended by local students, the male and female valedictorians collaborated over the theme of the song " Imagine" by John Lenin. Susan followed in a shrill voice declaring that we are at war now and it will last forever. That there are people who hate us for our freedom and would come over here and kill us so we must sacrifice and go to war.
Well isn't that just uplifting and positive? I am sure all the graduates were inspired and encouraged ready to go forth. Imagine that!
Abe, a few items.
1. Susan Collins represents ALL of Maine, as does Olympia Snowe. Senators are not constrained by districts as are Representatives.
2. Senator Collins' speech may sound different to you, but she is NOT slow of wit. To suggest such is demeaning to an entire segment of our society. It is a special degree of ignorance that judges a person by his or her speech impediments.
3. Senator Collins has parted from the Republican party line MANY times in the past and for the most part has represented Maine's interest.
4. Maine has had a history of strong, progressive women in politics. It has traditionally been a Republican leaning state, but has shown it's independant stance on many occasions.
5. To catagorize northern Mainers (Mainiacs) as 'flat earthers' shows a huge lack of knowledge on your behalf. (or is it just narrow-mindedness?) And since your daughter lives and goes to school there, what are you saying about your family?
LASTLY, I do not agree with what Senator Collins said and have publicly stated so and have sent her an e-mail to that effect. Many people have a difficult time looking beyond a single issue or single occurance and will use one point to form an opinion. That is each individual's right. Just as it is my right to tell you that I found your post to show you to be bigoted, and ill-informed. Welcome to Maine, now please go home.
Collins is a senator. I think she represents the whole State of Maine, just as Senator Snow does.
I believe this woman is also considered a progressive within the Republican Party. If she is progressive, I think US style fascism is just around the corner. The usual instantiations of a fascist state is controlled by a caudillo or a duce or a Feuhrer with national corporations subservient to them and their political organizations. The US fascist state will be the other way around, they will evolve into a state ruled by international corporations that impose their rule upon political organizations and their mostly ignorant leadership.
Does anyone have some idea as to what Collins seeks to gain from this absurd video?
"The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees"
That was YET ANOTHER inexcusable constitutional violation by professional public servants at the federal level after an avalanche of violations of the law-of-the-land by the great majority of members of BOTH elite parties installed in office, some illegally. If these public servants, members of the Congruss and inhabitants of the Oval Orifice, cannot enact legislation holding to the spirit of the US Constitution, what the hell is the government for?
It is a blatant failure of their civic duty for the USan people to continue to elect the likes of these criminals to such high office. It would be better to shut down the legislative process, freeze and run with a static set of laws than to allow this irresponsible nation to continue providing mandates for greed-stricken criminals to continue enacting constitution-violating crapola while simultaneously violating and shredding what few truly functional laws that remain from a distant era of ethical/logical/emotional sanity.
"The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees"
That was YET ANOTHER inexcusable constitutional violation by professional public servants at the federal level after an avalanche of violations of the law-of-the-land by the great majority of members of BOTH elite parties installed in office, some illegally. If these public servants, members of the Congruss and inhabitants of the Oval Orifice, cannot enact legislation holding to the spirit of the US Constitution, what the hell is the government for?
It is a blatant failure of their civic duty for the USan people to continue to elect the likes of these criminals to such high office. It would be better to shut down the legislative process, freeze and run with a static set of laws than to allow this irresponsible nation to continue providing mandates for greed-stricken criminals to continue enacting constitution-violating crapola while simultaneously violating and shredding what few truly functional laws that remain from a distant era of ethical/logical/emotional sanity.
As a Repuk, Susan Collins' job description is to promote the ignorance of her constituents, her supporters, and their peers, nationwide, and worldwide. Ignorance is the great enabler of classist oppression, although the great enabling PARTY is the Demok party.
I guess I'm kinda slow.
When we talk about the prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram (sp?) and elsewhere as if they are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, I think it is a lie.
How can it be that the U.S. military is in control of every aspect of these bases/prisons, that the U.S. military is supposedly legally answerable to the Commander-in Chief, That the Commander-in Chief is supposedly legally answerable to the Supreme Court and the Congress, and yet the Constitution is not applicable to what I would say is very much U.S. controlled territory?
Ultimately, who is in charge?
Do they fly the U.S. flag on these bases?
Are they not places where a U.S. citizen could seek refuge if necessary?
Does the President of the United States of America have any legal oversight of these bases and, if so, why is the military allowed and encouraged to disregard the Constitution?
You're not slow. Bush created the term "enemy combatant" and intentionally confused the issue.
Prisoner of War camps are subject to the Geneva Conventions, which are part of a treaty ratified by the President and the Senate. Prisoners of War do not have the same rights as a US citizen. They have the rights spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.
Enemy combatants don't have rights under the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions and but there is also no legal basis for detaining these people, because "enemy combatant" is a term that has no basis in the law.
I think Greenwald once again is correct and deserves thanks for stating what should be obvious but evidently isn't to many people. (By the way, I don't fault him for thinking that freedom of speech per the First Amendment applies to entities, not just people, since the "press" isn't a person.)
What really has gotten to me lately is all the complaining about Abdulmutallab being read his Miranda rights and "lawyered up." This is code language for the desire to see the man tortured. Legally (if that still counts), he had rights regardless of whether they were read to him. The Miranda warning is a device to inform people who don't know their rights, or forgot about them, what their rights are, and to remind law enforcement officers of the detainee's rights, including law officers' the duty to provide legal counsel if that's requested, and not to torture him if he refuses to answer questions. We give those rights to even the worst serial killers. Catching criminals, not giving them rights after capture, is the problem.
Abdulmutallab isn't a child or retarded; he must have known that under U.S. law he didn't have to answer questions if he chose not to, and could be appointed counsel before being tried. What people who complain about his Miranda warning (if indeed he received one) really are saying is, as Collins suggests, that anyone detained and accused of committing or planning a terrorist act doesn't deserve to have the right to remain silent or have a lawyer. And what does that mean? What else – that the captors ought to beat the **** out of them in secret until the "terrorist" says whatever they want him to say, or dies. I know from listening to people in my very own community that this is the mindset even among mild-mannered churchgoers and contributors to charity. The corruption at the top has trickled down to the average man, woman, and child.
For a while I thought Obama had at least improved the country's international reputation. Now, with him "not looking back" and people like Collins and Scott Brown broadcasting to the world that Americans think it's okay to torture Muslims – get ready for more terrorism as the ranks of al Qaeda swell.
well it wasn't obvious to me without Greenwald's excellent arguments that completely demolish the Collins sentiment.
If this "war on terror" were really honest in conception or execution it might make good psychological sense to treat them exactly as any violent criminal in our legal system: accused, tried, verdict rendered, and either jailed or freed such as the evidence sustains. By treating them as we do we inflate their importance in their eyes as well as ours.
Gotta love the right, they're so good at supplying the terrorist community with just cause.
Palin and Collins in '12
Justaman February 1st, 2010 10:15 pm -- That's a good point about inflating their importance. Never, ever do the conservatives understand that.
Susan Collins is portrayed as a "moderate" Republican. Should a politician who fear mongers and spreads lies about our constitution be called moderate?
Not even Obama can be considered a moderate Republican.
If Traitor Joe Lieberman should put the brakes on, Susan
Collins would become a red light where the sun doesn't shine.
Thanks again, Glenn Greenwald. However, with so many lawmakers, statesmen (e.g., two Presidents) and the Supreme Court openly violating the Constitution and long-established laws, I find myself unable to react in a satisfactory manner to Senator Susan Collins' ignorance, be it willful or not.
We've seen rollbacks of habeas corpus. Laws and prohibitions against torture have been floated, while extraordinary rendition has become official White House policy. We've seen fundamental Constitutional rights trampled, leading to things like the wiretapping of the populace, which was sanctioned by Congress and Obama ex post facto. The Supreme Court declares money to be speech.
I don't think I'm exaggerating here. It leaves me numb. Is there no law, or is the law just meant for the little people?
-TIA