ACLU has problems with Anti-Terror Bill - What a Surprise!

Sure, there is a chance that the provision may be abused, but there is relief. If the defendant can prove that there is no danger for him to be out in society, he can get bail.

The problem is, that we are now fighting a war for which there are no precedents. It seems to me that the safety of the public trumps the rights of a person who is strongly suspected of terrorism. There is precedent in law for the denail of bail, and I think that it is appropriate.

I think the difference between people in violent drug crimes and this about terroism is that no one is going to keep a person who does any of those crimes for years without charge and so denied a chance to prove themselves innocent.

Our founding fathers did something right in creating an atmosphere of checks and balances and due process. When we start to loose that kind of atmosphere in the name of security we are going to be left someday in the position of not having it ourselves.

If a Grand Jury has indited one of terrorism, I would suspect the risk of flight is quite high.

I would agree that bail be denied.

First of all, we are not fighting a war for which there are no precedents.

We heard this all in the war against communism. The fact that Communist were infiltrating the US, their ability to launch devestating attacks at any time, their hatred of American freedom and their utility to justify wars against other countries.

This is very much the same thing we have been fed since we were kids- only the name of the "enemy" has changed.

Second of all, where are the conservatives?

I remember when people on the right worried about he government having too much power against citizens. What happened?

The part about the bail don't bother me so much becuse like phonex said, there are others denied bail becasue of the offense.

It is just that it seems like the administration can declare a terrorist an enemy combatant right in the middle of the process and then it is altogther different.

An indictment is not a guilty verdict so just because a person is indicted does not mean that they do not deserve the right to prove themselves innocent.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Giving up American values of liberty and justice for security is an act of pure cowardice.

ebrown - the objection relates to bail....

No. the objection relates to imprisonment. By denying bail you subject the defendant to imprisonment -- perhaps for an extended period of time-- before he has been convicted of a crime.

In these cases, the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that the defendant presents a great risk. This proof should involve more than the fact the government invoked the magic word, or that the defendant belongs to a mosque.

so what happens if we just do away with that silly "innocent until proven guilty" idea? I believe it would be far more efficient to assume guilt in all cases.

In due time the matter will find itself before the Supreme Court for review. Not all Republicans, or conservatives for that matter, were convinced that this legislation is in the best interests of the nation, or without some serious problems. On the other hand, the Democrats pushed very hard for its adoption. I have my own doubts about the wisdom of this legislation, but those we've elected as our representatives have passed it.

The President was in a no-win position. If he fought the passage of the Bill, the partisans of the left would make a stink. Support of the Bill would have, and has had the same effect. On balance, it seems he believed that the legislation had more to recommend it than not. We'll just have to wait and see it the faults in the legislation result in abuses.

The Constitution provides for the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and there is precedent for it. To hold some suspects charged with specific crimes is not an attack on the principle "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers". The citizen prisoner remains "innocent", though prevented from fleeing or further criminal activity until after trial. Non-citizens and enemy combatants who are charged with violent crimes, or complicity in violent crimes against the soveriegnty of the United States, may properly be held and disposed of by martial law. This is a fuzzy area, and the legal system is encountering many situations/questions that don't fit easily into our traditional definitions of how to properly proceed. That's alright, the Anglo-American law has built into it flexibility to meet unforeseen circumstances.

Almost without doubt there will be Constitutional challenges. Be patient and let the system work. Things in the real world don't move at the same speed as the public imagination.

In addition to denying bail, let's deny access to attorneys as well.... After all, they're terrorists if the Gov't says so.

Excellent advice, as usual, Asherman. Too bad it will fall on deaf ears on this forum. Hysteria seems to be the norm here.

The passage of the "intelligence" act not unlike the passage of the "patriot" act only proves that the dems and repubs are equally corrupt. The no-win position of the president is self-inflicted.

You and woiyo on the party line there, eh? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is hysterical.

Must be hard calming down all us chicken littles.

M. Little,

There was a wilful young lad who believed that if only the rest of the community would listen to him the village could be transformed into paradise. The village got a bit tired of the constant second-guessing and asked the boy's parent's if they wouldn't ask him to think before he spoke. The parents were outraged at the suggestion, but they did put their offensive son to watching over the family flocks during the night. Everyone knew there was a pack of wolves in the neighborhood, and with their son's keen eye he would be the perfect watchman.

For awhile that seemed to work. The boy watched the flocks all night and by morning was too tired to preach hell 'n damnation from the street corners. However, biorythmns being what they are eventually the lad got used to being awake all night, and sleeping during the day. It was then that he began to get bored, and his vivid imagination soared. What was that which moved in the shadows at the far side of the herd? Perhaps it was the wolf! The boy raised the alarm, and his family and villagers swarmed into action. There was a wolf track found a mile from the flock, but that was all. The lad was honored for his diligence, and some of the villagers even began to re-evalutate the boy's reputation.

After a while the lad again thought he saw something, and raised the alarm. Nothing was found, so the village went back to sleep. Over the next year, the shepard raised the alarm twenty times ... all without result. The boy really was beginning to enjoy his power over the villagers, and he felt justified in making life difficult for all those solid burgers who failed to appreciate his superior mind. When sheep and lambs began to disappear, the shepard insisted that it was the wolves. Right. Many in the village were convinced that it was the shepard lad who was eating the their lost lambs, not the wolves at all.

Oh how soon we forget our kindergarten lessons.

And your little parable reflects reality not at all; keep telling yourself that it does, though, if it comforts you at night.

Two reasonable people may start with the same information and come to different conclusions.

The condescending attitudes and name-calling only undermine your own position, however, and reveal your own insecurities.

I haven't called anyone anything. The propensity of some to "hysterically" over react, and insist that every administration policy is designed to undermine and destroy liberty and democracy is reminiscent of morality stories. Neither the story of Chicken Little, nor the Boy Who Cried Wolf are "my" stories. They just seem naturally to fit the behavior of some of those who are most vehemently anti-administration here.

How can one formulate effective policies without risK? National and international events can not be reliably predicted. One assembles the best intelligence possible (understanding that it is never complete, nor entirely accurate), and then formulates the best response and proactive plan your team is capable of. The whole field of public policy is much more an art, than a science and outcomes are always only a matter of probability.

Those who forecast doom and gloom are occasionally right, but more often the future is merely a mix of upsides and downsides. Hindsight is pretty good, but few on the left are nearly so accurate as Nostradamus. Just as faulty are those who believe that only their own Party can be reliably trusted with the reigns of government.

I think I just figured out what my problem is. I'm an eternal optimist

Agreed. I was referring to JW's and woiyo's (in another thread) use of "hysterical" as an attempt to deflect the discussion without substantiating the claim


We are not discussing "every" administration policy, here. In fact, this bill was pushed more by the Democrats than the Republicans.

I still believe your "M. Little" and boy-who-cried-wolf stories are intended to be condescending.


I think there are quite few of us that were dead-on (pun intended) about the probable outcome of invading Iraq, the erosion of civil liberties due to the Patriot Act, etc.

I personally prefer when one party controls the legislature and the other party controls the White House. Gridlock causes only the best compromise legislation/policies to come to fruition.