Domestic Terrorism

Guantonamo Prisoner’s Rights II

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism gonzales Law Enforcement War on Terrorism on by

Bryan, in a comment to this post notes:

I was in law enforcement and part of our public liability training dealt with section 242 of Title 18 of the US Code which gives non-citizens the same rights as citizens in the area of criminal law.

On his blog, he links to the relevant sections of the US Code including Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, � 2340A – Torture which says:

a) Offense.� Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.� There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if�
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.� A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

I suspect the gonzales will not be upholding his obligation as attorney general to uphold the laws of the United States.
Oh, I suppose, though, that like his predecessor he will wastefully allocate plenty of resources to activities occurring between consenting adults.

Guantonamo Prisoner’s Rights

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Economics Federal Government Libertarianism US Foreign Policy War on Terrorism on by

Steven Taylor gets it right with regard to US District Judge Green’s ruling that the Guantonamo Bay prisoners have constitutional protections:

While I am amenable to the argument that non-citizens may not have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens (depending on the exact circumstances), I do adhere to the notion that there are fundamental hunan rights, many of which are, in fact, detailed in the US Constitution. As a result I cannot abide by the concept that we have the right to indefinitely detain human beings who �might� be a threat. Either they are a threat or they are not, and there needs to be a legitimate process by which to determine that fact.
The issue to me is that there has to be some standard applied to these detainees, and since it seems we have been unable to construct a viable one, I am not sure the proper course isn�t the Constitution.

The key is that as human beings we all have certain fundamental rights. That some of them are detailed in the US Constitution does not restrict their application to only US citizens.

Acceptable Search?

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Economics Technology on by

I have no objection to private use of GPS technology to track company vehicles, for geocaching, tracking your teenager’s driving, backtracking your hiking trail, etc., as long as everyone know whats happening. Unmonitored use by law enforcement employees is not acceptable:

When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a court order by state police.
Police suspected the lawyer of ties to a local Hells Angels Motorcycle Club that was selling methamphetamine, and they feared undercover officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities. So investigators stuck a GPS, or Global Positioning System, bug on Moran’s car, watched his movements, and arrested him on drug charges a month later.
A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. “Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways,” U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote. “Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway.”
Well, I say BS to Judge Hurd.
Why shouldn’t I or Moran have an expectation of privacy? Especially from public employees. And even more importantly as we move through public spaces which we must do to carry on the basic activities of being human.
Given the rapidly changing tools available to capture information about individuals or groups it is time to expand our view of what is considered acceptable search and surveillance practices. If law enforcement folks are not in hot pursuit of someone who just committed a legitimate1 crime then they should be required to have probable cause approved by an independent judiciary before they are allowed to investigate, let alone surveil, any individual or group for any reason. This should apply whether that individual or group is acting in traditionally private spaces or in what are considered public spaces.
1For the purpose of this post I ignore the question of whether methamphetamine sales is a legitimate crime.
Via Declan McCullagh.