ce26bbac222807e7e9aa…

Hi. Thanks for the good read….

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

It is amazing to me, simply amazing, that individuals that claim to be the heirs of the Enlightenment, people of the Renaissance, from which present day humanism springs would villify fellow human beings in such a way. As if we still live in a world of separation – like 200 or 300 hundred years ago, with no commons nor means of world communication, like there is not a world which has been influenced richly by many cultures.

Well, I have news for you – you cannot embrace the fruit of humanism and demonize a fellow human being, lump over a billion people into one monsterous category that must be destroyed. You must make a choice between the future of a world of rich diversity, or one unnaturally partitioned by a voice of hegemony and empire. Which will you chose, will you serve mankind or will you be the slaves of greedy, power driven and bloodthristy empire? It is that simple and yet so profound – will you chose death or will you chose life?

MT, I see the checks and balances system as very good at slowing change, not stopping it. I don’t see the courts reversing the administration’s authoritarian course, merely slowing it. If we are to succesfully stop injustice, our voices our required.

Second, you imply that I am advocating some kind of direct democracy. I am not. Passionate advocates often have more influence than a passive minority. In this case, those of us passionately concerned about justice can have a greater impact than our number. Make some noise.

Yet France is, somehow, both civilized (the French would say more so than America, and many others would agree) and relatively free.
Vivien responds:
Ah, France! Yes, a truly FREE society that:
1. Criminalizes free speech for its citizens
2. Dictates modes of dress for its citizens
3. Minutely manages every aspect of the its citizens’ economic life
Yeah … really a society that espouses the principles of liberty. Wow, you really did your homework.
With a free press, a prisoner incarcerated unjustly, held incommunicado, with no formal legal recourse, can still become a cause celebre in the press. If the cause is compelling enough to enough citizens, the state will feel some compulsion to relent.
Vivien responds:
Really working for Padilla now, isn’t it? Really working for the Chinese political prisoners, isn’t it? And with the US government pursuing reporters under contempt charges, really seems to be a great way to protect democracy in the future. Childish.
Constitutional rule is ultimately made of people and their convictions — ink on paper is only mnemonic device.
Vivien responds:
Are you even thinking when you write this claptrap? You provide the justification for my argument. Of course, liberty is about convictions … And each and every infringement of it shouldn’t be tolerated AT ALL. Which is why any breach of habeas corpus should be met with overwhelming opposition.
You can’t fight “stupid and wrong” by being stupid and wrong yourself. Well, actually, you can. But you’ll lose.
Vivien responds:
Exactly, stupid! You can’t be stupid and say that infringements of liberty produce liberty. Che stupido!

>

With a free press, a prisoner incarcerated unjustly, held incommunicado, with no formal legal recourse, can still become a cause celebre in the press. If the cause is compelling enough to enough citizens, the state will feel some compulsion to relent.

>

Constitutional rule is ultimately made of people and their convictions — ink on paper is only mnemonic device.

>

You can’t fight “stupid and wrong” by being stupid and wrong yourself. Well, actually, you can. But you’ll lose.

>

I’m not defending this administration’s infringement of habeas corpus and have said that I oppose it, several times. I can’t see how even a selective reading of my remarks could yield Balter’s interpretation. I liked the status quo ante about habeas corpus, and I’m upset that it’s been eroded by Bush & Co. As for defending the “status quo” of a military coup, what a silly non sequitur — a military coup is a usurpation of power, so how can I be defending it as “status quo”? I don’t defend all military coups. I just see that *some* of them might be less bad than the sham democracies they unseat. I won’t offer a final opinion on either the Fijian or the Thai situation at this point, but neither of these situations appear to Myanmars in the making, and both bid fair to see a return to elections in the foreseeable future.

Mavis Beacon writes: “What is essential is that we correct course, and here’s where I think Michael Turner is far too passive.”

What I see is that the course IS being corrected, and by the typical means — in an interplay between the courts, the judiciary and the legislative branch. Case in point: Padilla. The administration had apparently hoped to hold him forever, under the prejudicial and unchallenged indictment of conspiring in a “dirty bomb” attack. They’ve been forced to allow him to be tried, and (since there was apparently no evidence for the original charge) on reduced charges. That might not sound like progress to you, but it does to me. Even the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is progress of a kind — the Bush administration was forced by a Supreme Court decision to take the issues raised by its illegal enemy combatant policy to the legislative branch. I don’t like what’s come out of that, but I do think it’s better than having it handled by a whole little secret executive branch tumor that could metastasize and engulf ever more of the body politic. And I can’t wait until it sees more court challenges as a piece of legislation — which I’m sure it will.

“Turner projects a sort of fatalism and belief in the magic of the American system and political culture.”

There’s nothing magical about it. It works in part because it pits the ambitious and powerful against each other, within a framework that has withstood the test of time.

As for “fatalism,” you seem to have it confused with “rational hope.”

” …. I’d like to see regular citizens take a more active role and not just wait for the Republican Supreme Court to restore justice for the marginalized.”

The average American citizen seems to be in favor of indefinite incarceration, and even torture, of at least some terror suspects, last I checked the polls on these issues. Be careful of what you want — you might get it.

Of course tampering with habeas corpus doesn’t jeopardize all citizens immediately. Our political institutions and culture are not so weak that one misstep sends the nation into chaos. Even more egregious offenses, the internment of the Japanese for instance, didn’t lead to mass wrongful imprisonment of dissenters. Holding a very small number of terror suspects indefinitely and without trial, while morally objectionable and strategically unwise, simply does not endanger us all in the short term. What is essential is that we correct course, and here’s where I think Michael Turner is far too passive.

Turner projects a sort of fatalism and belief in the magic of the American system and political culture. Since the president has overreached, “the system is opening up, because it’s being pried open by forces that are ultimately stronger than the Executive.” That’s a nice hope, but I’d like to see regular citizens take a more active role and not just wait for the Republican Supreme Court to restore justice for the marginalized.

Let’s not depend on the Supremes to rescue us.

MB I think is in the former category while MT speaks like while his heart still resides in the protective cocone of the endless idealism of a Uiversity, made possible by those willing to actually fight for habeus corpus, he’s actually had to leave the University and live in the real world with a real job among real practical people…..while retaining his learned analytical skills of course.

Some may wonder why I bother with Turner. The answer, as I say above, is that he is very clever at finding ways to justify pretty much anything that many of the rest of us find objectionable, which makes him–as I said above–pernicious.

I make a point of this because I think that Turner’s entire framework of reasoning and argumentation, as Ahmed has indicated too, is designed to justify and defend the status quo–whether it be habeas corpus or military coups–while at the same time appearing to be reasonable and analytical. To me that makes him one of the most pernicious commentators on this blog.

http://www.freelori.org/news/01mar21_ap.html

that reinforce an impression I was given in my youth and somehow never lost.

According to the Wikipedia article on the Napoleonic Code, it’s still commonly believed that the French system assumes “guilty until proven innocent”, but only because of the indefinite terms of remand for suspects of heinous crimes — i.e., that prisoners can be held for such a long time. (Which is more to the point here, is it not?)

I welcome any contradiction (especially if substantiated by a reference) of my possible misconception that France does not have habeas corpus. Unlike Michael Balter, I’m usually willing to revise my views in the light of new facts. He, of course, cannot be convinced that any military coup could be better the persistence of even the worst sham democracy, or that a right doesn’t suddenly blink out of existence just because there’s a piece of paper signed by the President saying it’s gone. Facts make no dent. He lives in a world where there are only absolutes, and no ambiguities. It must be comforting in a way. Perhaps it’s like the feeling that you know everything.

“Turner just pulled this one out of a hat and hoped no one would notice.”

… combined, I might add, with an automatic persecution complex that kicks into gear whenever challenged on his omniscience. I didn’t “pull it out of a hat” — I merely echoed a commonly-believed factoid. How mortifying. I stand corrected (but also wipe a gratuitous gob of spittle from my face as I stand.)

This is just flat wrong. The presumption of innocence is clearly laid out in constitutional, parliamentary, and case law in France. Turner just pulled this one out of a hat and hoped no one would notice.

No, of course not, better to slyly insinuate it.

“…. but I definitely think this is a relevant, if peripheral, side of this issue.”

The comparison with Lind, errant scion of a well-to-do family living in a toney suburb, with Padilla, of rather more humble origins, is more to the point. It’s probably more about class than race. The race card doesn’t play very well here, when the other side can pull Ricardo Sanchez and Roberto Gonzalez from their hands and slap them on the table — some pretty big-time face-cards, even if some think they are knaves and jokers.

I’m not defending this administration’s infringement of habeas corpus and have said that I oppose it, several times. I can’t see how even a selective reading of my remarks could yield Balter’s interpretation. I liked the status quo ante about habeas corpus, and I’m upset that it’s been eroded by Bush & Co. As for defending the “status quo” of a military coup, what a silly non sequitur — a military coup is a usurpation of power, so how can I be defending it as “status quo”? I don’t defend all military coups. I just see that *some* of them might be less bad than the sham democracies they unseat. I won’t offer a final opinion on either the Fijian or the Thai situation at this point, but neither of these situations appear to Myanmars in the making, and both bid fair to see a return to elections in the foreseeable future.

Mavis Beacon writes: “What is essential is that we correct course, and here’s where I think Michael Turner is far too passive.”

What I see is that the course IS being corrected, and by the typical means — in an interplay between the courts, the judiciary and the legislative branch. Case in point: Padilla. The administration had apparently hoped to hold him forever, under the prejudicial and unchallenged indictment of conspiring in a “dirty bomb” attack. They’ve been forced to allow him to be tried, and (since there was apparently no evidence for the original charge) on reduced charges. That might not sound like progress to you, but it does to me. Even the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is progress of a kind — the Bush administration was forced by a Supreme Court decision to take the issues raised by its illegal enemy combatant policy to the legislative branch. I don’t like what’s come out of that, but I do think it’s better than having it handled by a whole little secret executive branch tumor that could metastasize and engulf ever more of the body politic. And I can’t wait until it sees more court challenges as a piece of legislation — which I’m sure it will.

“Turner projects a sort of fatalism and belief in the magic of the American system and political culture.”

There’s nothing magical about it. It works in part because it pits the ambitious and powerful against each other, within a framework that has withstood the test of time.

As for “fatalism,” you seem to have it confused with “rational hope.”

” …. I’d like to see regular citizens take a more active role and not just wait for the Republican Supreme Court to restore justice for the marginalized.”

The average American citizen seems to be in favor of indefinite incarceration, and even torture, of at least some terror suspects, last I checked the polls on these issues. Be careful of what you want — you might get it.