Just Above Sunset
January 9, 2005 - Only Girly Men Consider the Bill of Rights













Home | Question Time | Something Is Up | Connecting Dots | Stay Away | Overload | Our Man in Paris | WLJ Weekly | Book Wrangler | Cobras | The Edge of the Pacific | The Surreal Beach | On Location | Botanicals | Quotes





Fox News is raising this as a controversy.  Most Americans – they say – have no problem with this, and girly-men like Lugar and Levin do.  I glanced at this on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend.  Fox made Lugar and Levin look like wimps – and wimps who hate America.  Sure it’s probably unconstitutional, but we want to be safe.  Must there be “some modicum, some semblance of due process?”  The constitution is not a suicide pact and all that.  Why do Lugar and Levin want more Americans to die?  Fox News is on this issue.

 

This from Reuters –

 

WASHINGTON - Sun Jan 2, 2005 10:39 AM ET  (Reuters) - A reported U.S. plan to keep some suspected terrorists imprisoned for a lifetime even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts was swiftly condemned on Sunday as a "bad idea" by a leading Republican senator.

 

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it was unwilling to set free or turn over to U.S. or foreign courts, the Washington Post said in a report that cited intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

 

Some detentions could potentially last a lifetime, the newspaper said.

 

Influential senators denounced the idea as probably unconstitutional.

 

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."

 

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, cited earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions. "There must be some modicum, some semblance of due process ... if you're going to detain people, whether it's for life or whether it's for years," Levin said, also on Fox.

 

This from Just Above Sunset columnist Bob Patterson -

 

If legislators are going to hinder the process, perhaps the time has come for Gleichschaltung.


It's a legal maneuver that permits the president to enact laws without putting them through the legislative process.


Matters such as life in prison for terrorists could be simplified because if it was according to law then there would not be the need for any appeals and such.


The particulars for such a move are detailed on page 196 ff. of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer.


Russian terrorists had pulled a 9-11 style attack on the German Congress and they had to pass a Patriot style act, which they did.  The first edict passed on Feb. 28, 1933 permitted: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property; are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."


That wasn't enough.  They had to proceed to Gleichschaltung to protect the citizens from the Communist terrorists.


It seems that some method for the President to establish new laws that supersede the previous ones that hinder the war on terrorism are of paramount importance and the only way to get to that point is an Americanized version of Gleichschaltung.

 

Shall we give it a try?  Just for four years, just like the German measure was written in 1933.  Of course one of the new edict type laws removed the final deadline for the end of the method, but few complained when that happened.

 

This may sound facetious, but don't be too surprised if someone "runs it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes."

 

Didn't Upton Sinclair write a book titled:  "It Can't Happen Here"?

 

Maybe he was wrong?































 
 
 
 

Copyright 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
 
_______________________________________________
The inclusion of any text from others is quotation
for the purpose of illustration and commentary,
as permitted by the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. 
See the Details page for the relevant citation.

This issue updated and published on...

Paris readers add nine hours....























Visitors:

________