Hank
|
Poster: Hank @ Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 am
Notes on David Cole's "In Case Of Emergency"
*** This is Cole's rebuttal to Ackerman's revised 'Emergency Constitution' proposal ***
- the terror problem is fundamentally one of technological progress
- it'll never be known if or when Al-Qaeda is defeated, and other loose-knit groups may spring up as well
-Terror awareness is 'the new normal' (cf Cheney)
-Ackerman proposes a change in const system to address present inadequacy to address the "political emergency" caused by terror attacks (neither war not crimes)
-Ackerman's proposal has three basic flaws :
1) There is no reason to believe that suspicionless preventive detention will make us safer
2) This provision would "not forestall the abuse of civil liberties"
3) Inappropriate preference of legislative over judicial checks
-Preventive detention, as shown by Palmer, Korematsu, Ashcroft incidents, has not been shown to work.
-The "terribly thin hope" that such detention may one day be effective is inadequate to justify such an 'awesome' extension of power
-Ackerman's revised plan adds "reasonable suspicion" to the preventive detention, but since the detainees have no legal recourse while held and are not entitled to any additional compensation when released if their jailers did not use the 'reasonable suspicion' test, the addition of that test has zero effect or meaning.
-Ackerman's idea that his solution will prevent civil rights abuse is 'mere wishful thinking' and is contrary to the lessons of history
-Bush's declaration of emergency after 9/11 allowed him to arbitrarily freeze assets, etc, but the provision of these powers did not stop the government from 'radically infringing' civil liberties with other acts (wiretapping, torture, etc) under the aegis of war
-Emergency and war are not mutually exclusive, and neither are their powers-- 9/11 'gave rise to an emergency and was followed by a war'
-Ackerman himself says that terror is a permanent condition, so it's unclear why a temporary solution makes sense whatsoever
-Ackerman acknowledges that constitutional amendments are virtually impossible to pass, but his proposal would only work as such -- any other implementation would be insufficiently binding
-Ackerman's proposal betrays a 'fashionable' distrust of the courts
-Calls Ack's criticism of Hamdi 'overblown'
-The reliance on the legislature is clearly an invitation for panic and overemphasis on security to carry the day -- again, see history
-Bottom line : there are already ample measures both legal and appropriate that are available in times of emergency : tightening security in airports and chemical plants, co-ordinating intelligence efforts, etc
-These available measures have real preventive value without undermining Constitutional principles
(40,915)
|
Share
