[Vision2020] US Constitution Revised?

Tue May 6 02:33:34 PDT 2008

Keely et. al.

All sarcasm aside, yours or mine, my main point was that since 9/11, our
government has increasingly hollowed out the "moral sense," as you phrased
it, of the US Constitution.  The so called civil rights granted to
immigrants, whether legal immigrants or not, or US citizens, by law prior to
9/11, are now, by laws passed post 9/11, undermined.  This view is
supported by some of the best legal scholars in the US.

Detainees and prisoners can legally, as I outlined in the post you responded
to listing the legislation and executive orders passed post 9/11 that have
impacted this issue, be denied the rights that are under discussion in this
thread.  In short, the "rights" don't exist absolutely, at least in the
context of the newly written law.  A good reason to invoke "God" as a
foundation for absolute ethical standards, if only humans agreed broadly on
what "God" is, or what "God's" ethical standards are.

Debating the rights of immigrants in this context might deflect attention
away from the fact that our rights in general as US citizens have been
weakened.  The foundations of what the US Constitution ostensibly grants
as civil rights is at issue.  The very fact our government has in recent
years debated the efficacy of torture, or the justifications to suspend
habeas corpus, demonstrates this.  US Attorney General Gonzales called the
Geneva Conventions "quaint."

The discussion in this thread has focused in part on whether children born
in the US to "illegal" immigrants are granted US citizenship automatically.
In fact, US citizens can be stripped of their legal rights as citizens,
given changes to law since 9/11.
Consider Japanese Americans, placed in camps during WWII, as a warning for
what could happen.  We are now in an endless "war on terror," used as a
justification to weaken civil rights.  Given that terrorism in one form or
another will likely exist for generations, our civil rights are thus in
jeapordy of being suspended for generations.

The rights granted by a government (and we can debate where rights reside,
or from what source they are granted, in theory, but when a gun is put to
your head, you are beaten or tortured, and jailed, theory may not mean much)
are only as good as the last legislative session, the next president willing
to abuse the power of the executive, or the willingness of those empowered
to use violence in the name of the state when a climate of fear and
authoritarianism dominates.

Ted Moffett

On 5/4/08, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
> I was being somewhat sarcastic, Ted, and I guess it didn't come through.
> Ideally, you and I and everyone else who cares about justice would have a
> never-ending, unfading glow of pride in the United States' demonstrated
> commitment to basic human and civil rights -- but the reality, as you note
> below, is that our country has had a deplorable history of treating with
> righteousness and justice the poor, the vulnerable, the lost and the
> powerless.  My intent was to remind Donovan, et al, that the very things we
> believe to be wonderful (wonderful, not unique) about the U.S. are those
> that cause consternation when others paraphrasing -- recklessly -- documents
> like the Guia. del Migrantes Mexicanos.
>
> That the U.S. is the hope and dream of many of the world's oppressed
> people makes it all the more shameful and bitterly ironic when those
> immigrants, detainees, and refugees are denied basic human rights.  I
> consider it a minimum moral standard that undocumented immigrants be treated
> humanely and within the bounds of the Constitution, and my point to Donovan
> was that disseminating information about an immigrant's civil rights in the
> U.S. hardly constitutes an act of hostility toward the Constitution but
> rather a confirmation of its moral sense.
>
> And, speaking of morals, I wish Donovan would dispense with the "Rev.
> Keely, moral elitist" thing.  I think I deserve, frankly, to have "moral
> elitist" capitalized . . .
>
> Keely
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 16:03:08 -0700
> From: starbliss at gmail.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate
> CC: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; joekc at adelphia.net;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> On 5/4/08, *keely emerinemix* <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>  I feel a glow of pride in my country when I reflect on the fact that
> detainees cannot legally be hit, tortured, verbally abused, ...  I've been
> accused of being unpatriotic, but I'm damned proud that whatever its myriad
> other faults, my country offers basic civil liberties to prisoners and
> detainees.  I'm so sorry Donovan can't join me in that.
>
> Keely
>
>
> I wish I could share Keely's glow of pride in the US's respect for basic
> civil rights, but in fact I am dismayed, disappointed and, when considering
> the gravity of the changes, shocked at the undermining of basic civil
> liberties by our government.  I think it is easy to forget or downplay what
> has really happened to the guarantees of civil rights that many assume are
> respected by the world's leading "democracy."  The changes are so
> incredible, denial is an understandable response.  Of course, many people
> have never been fully aware of the full extent of the weakening of civil
> rights in the US.
>
> Someone correct me if I misunderstand the current legal climate in the US
> regarding basic civil liberties, but I think the evidence demonstrates
> "basic civil liberties" have been recently, and still can be, denied to
> prisoners and detainees, both on US soil, and on "foreign" soil either under
> US control (Guantanamo), or transported to foreign soil by agents of the US
> to be held by foreign agents (rendered for interrogation using torture, in
> some cases, conducted by non-US agents, such as in Syria).
>
> Unless the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other actions
> passed by the US Congress, and relevant executive orders issued by the Bush
> administration, have been voided, "basic civil liberties," banning torture,
> and assuring the protections of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment, and
> other Bill of Rights protections, can be denied to "detainees" and in fact
> to US citizens:
>
> At the URL below is a summary of changes to US law in recent years (post
> 9/11) regarding civil rights, with URLs to numerous sources on this subject:
>
> http://freedomfromfear.us/filemanager/active?fid=5
> ---------------
> More commentary on the undermining of basic civil rights by our
> government:
>
> http://www.llrx.com/extras/militarycommissions.htm
> The Military Commissions Act threatens not just terrorists, but, as
> Senator Leahy noted in his testimony<http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=2416&wit_id=2629>September 26, it
>
> *would permit the President to detain indefinitely - even for life - any
> alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or
> a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the
> alien to challenge his detention. The Administration would not even need to
> assert, much less prove, that the alien was an enemy combatant; it would
> suffice that the alien was "awaiting [a] determination" on that issue. In
> other words, the bill would tell the millions of legal immigrants living in
> America, participating in American families, working for American
> businesses, and paying American taxes, that our Government may at any minute
> pick them up and detain them indefinitely without charge, and without any
> access to the courts or even to military tribunals, unless and until the
> Government determines that they are not enemy combatants.*
> *Detained indefinitely, and unaccountably, until proven innocent.*
>
> Others have gone further to state that it threatens American citizens.
> Marjory Cohn (email <marjorie at tjsl.edu>, website<http://www.tjsl.edu/faculty_m_cohn>),
> professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law<http://www.tjsl.edu/about_tjsl>in San Diego and president of the National
> Lawyers Guild <http://www.nlg.org/about/aboutus.htm>, writing September
> 30, 2006 for the Legal Television Network, noted in her article, "Military
> Commissions Act: Unintended Consequences?"<http://www.legalnews.tv/commentary/the_military_commissions_act_unintended_consequences_20060930.html>
>
> *Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed
> that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens,
> "unlawful enemy combatants."*
>
> She added,
>
> *Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of
> "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's
> policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned
> indefinitely. That includes American citizens.*
>
> In addition to both those criticisms, the Center for Constitutional Rights
> added in its briefing paper<http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/Docs/MCA_Signing_Briefing_Paper.pdf>notes that:
>
> *The definitions of rape and sexual assault are narrower than under
> international
> law and have higher thresholds for proof.*
>
> It adds that the law authorizes:
>
>    - *authorizes the President to determine what constitutes torture;*
>    - *authorizes the use of evidence obtained by coercion;*
>    - *authorizes the use of hearsay; and*
>    - *authorizes retroactive immunity for U.S. military and
>    intelligence officials for
>    abuses that occurred at sites such as, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo,
>    Bagram and secret CIA facilities.*
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service
> Pack 1. Learn more.<http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080506/ff1c2b77/attachment-0001.html 