Cass Sunstein "Liberals"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:18:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In 2002, Obama legal advisor Cass Sunstein wrote:

President Bush's choice stands on firm legal ground insofar as he seeks to use military commissions to try people who planned and participated in the September 11 attacks (and similar actions).

In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where it stated:

Together, the UCMJ, the AUMF, and the DTA at most acknowledge a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the “Constitution and laws,” including the law of war. Absent a more specific congressional authorization, the task of this Court is, as it was in Quirin, to decide whether Hamdan’s military commission is so justified. . . The[] facts cast doubt on the legality of the charge and, hence, the commission; . . . the offense alleged must have been committed both in a theater of war and during, not before, the relevant conflict. But the deficiencies in the time and place allegations also underscore—indeed are symptomatic of—the most serious defect of this charge: The offense it alleges is not triable by law-of-war military commission.

More . . .

Today, Fred Hiatt writes one of the most startling sentences to appear in an important newspaper editorial in recent memory:

The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a step towards fascism. It is the power that a Pinochet, a Castro, a Mugabe, indeed all dictators, claim they must have. The Washington Post endorsing this view. Incredible. And yet, can we have any doubt that Obama legal advisor Cass Sunstein agrees with Fred Hiatt on this point? I do not think so.

Fred Hiatt (and one presumes Cass Sunstein) now know his position is viewed as extremist and shameful, so he ends his editorial thusly:

The Bush administration committed innumerable sins in denying fundamental rights to many it detained. It brought dishonor to the country, alienated allies and tarnished the tradition of the rule of law. The next president must be held to a higher standard, but he should not be hamstrung in his ability to protect the country because of the profound lapses in judgment of the current administration.

But there is not one thing that Bush has done in terms of assertion of executive power that Fred Hiatt (or Cass Sunstein) has disagreed with and indeed, the view he states in today's editorial is precisely the view of the Bush Administration, and "liberal" Obama legal advisor Cass Sunstein.

These views are extreme and unacceptable. No one holding such views should have a place in an Obama Administration.

Speaking for me only

< MoDo Gets Obamarized | A Belated Apology >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Cass Sunstein "Liberals" | 76 comments (76 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sunstein (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by david mizner on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST

won't have a job in the Obama administration, most likely; he'll be on the Supreme Court, replacing Stevens.

: No doubt you are referencing the fact (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:30:26 AM EST

that Justice Stevens wrote the Hamdan opinion.

The reason I am picking on Cass Sunstein is (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM EST

he is reputed be a key legal advisor to Barack Obama. He has every right to argue for any legal view he holds. But when he is advising the likely next President of the United States, then his views become a matter of grave public concern imo.

Then he should nbot be called an Obama advisor (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:15:56 PM EST

I suggest Obama make that point clear.

Has he?


I think he should be thrown under the bus (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:30:37 PM EST

as any advisor or do you find Susntein's positions and prevarications acceptable?


How do you know he is not a key advisor? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST

you do not address whether he is a "key" advisor because you can not.

I would like to see the day Sunstein is no longer referred to as an Obama advisor at all.

How about you?


: My vapors? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:58:34 PM EST

I have for some time instituted a zero tolerance policy for insults of me. The reason is I can not insult you back.
comment no further in my threads.
you are permanent banned from commenting in my posts.
Let that be a clear earning to everyone else. I do not get to insult you and you do not get to insult me ever.

Thrown under the bus. . . (none / 0) (#68)
by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:12:42 PM EST

assumes that Obama wants to disassociate himself from Sunstein's views. But he's obviously playing a "tough on terrorism" hand in the election. So I very much doubt you'll hear anything about the civil liberties aspect -- certainly not until after the election. If then.

On the basis of the material in this post, it appears to me you're ascribing Hiatt's view on indefinite detention, but you only quote Sunstein on the issue of how detainees should be tried, not the same thing.


: You misunderstand the underlying principles (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:31:30 PM EST

are the same. If you argue that as C-i-C the President can jettison due process, then, as the Al-Marri court ruled, then of course Presidential designation of citizens and non-citizens alike as "unlawful combatants" and detaining such persons indefinitely is perfectly correct.
Think about it Larry.
Now as to what Obama believes, well that is sort of the point here. I am trying a different approach to the issue.

Sunstein (none / 0) (#64)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST

does seem to be an inner-circle advisor, though a more occasional one than the others and let's hope therefore a less influential one.

He's even more dangerous on the socio-economic front, imo. Libertarian paternalism? Ugh.


Though to be fair (none / 0) (#65)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM EST

Obama did seem to be consulting him in a devil's advocate sort of way, recognizing him as a Bush enabler, at least if Sunstein's account in HuffPo is accurate:

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.
In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.
Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

If that's what purpose his advising is serving, that seems perfectly fine to me.

Sunstein speaks. Obama, (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:58:21 PM EST

who avowed to support a filibuster of FISA, instead votes in favor.


He chose (none / 0) (#76)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST

to do the politically expedient thing over what he clearly knew to be the right thing in this case. I think you could argue that that's marginally better than voting for it because he was under the illusion that there were no problems with it. Sunstein doesn't seem to have been the deciding factor - all those potential attack ads about his "weakness" on national security were.


I think Sunstein sewed the seeds. (none / 0) (#77)
by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST

: Nah (none / 0) (#78)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:54:53 PM EST

He laid out the opposing arguments and helped BO understand them from what was clearly not BO's own starting position on it. "To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides" doesn't sound like Sunstein did anything but convince him that the program was, in fact, illegal, and armed him with the precise reasons why.

This really should be the last straw, BTD> (4.50 / 2) (#22)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST

Forget Obama and work towards winning a big Democratic majority in Congress.
Obama is poison to the deepest values of liberals and progressives.


: Not to mention centrists (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by oldpro on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST

like BTD and me.
I'm long gone.
The question is, why is BTD still hanging in?
Hope? Nobody can argue against that...it's what I hung my hat on for 55 years of mostly lousy candidates, losers all (except for Clinton and Carter)...hoping against hope that they could win and would 'do right' if they did.
Maybe it's an age thing...after 70 it's hard to giveadamnanymore and put up with stupidity, believerpeople or the hope thing.
Over the hill. Depressed. Not loving it.
Sunstein. My cheese and crackers got all muddy, as we kids used to say. Let's see if that gets past the profanity screen....

Why do you say Sunstein agrees with Hiatt? (none / 0) (#37)
by MKS on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST

The principle of using military tribunals is not by itself a bad idea and has supporting precedent that includes the Nuremberg trials...

I am not sure how you get from supporting Nuremberg type trials to agreeing with Hiatt. Is it the failure to disagree with Hiatt or some other silence that leads you to believe this?


Did you click the links? (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:29:54 PM EST

Have you read my posts on egregious crimes?

Are you new to this discussion? do i have to write every post over again for your benefit because you are unwilling to click on links?


I see your point in the links on FISA (none / 0) (#54)
by MKS on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST

but I still don't see it on tribunals....

I suppose one can say that because Sunstein is bad on wiretapping, he agrees with Hiatt on holding people on bad or nonexistent evidence. Maybe it's a good predictor but it is not all that clear to me.....

Maybe I've missed something here....

I do not necessarily disagree that Sunstein is someone that Obama should ignore....And do I agree that keeping the spotlight on FISA is a good thing....


: If you read just THIs post (none / 0) (#66)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:55:28 PM EST

the problem on tribunals should be clear to you.

To give you an idea of how unrepentant (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST

Sunstein is regarding his views on these issues, I suggest you read his post on the Hamdan decision.

To be honest (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST

I don't understand what is objectionable about that post. I can't even find a single normative judgment in it at all.


Indeed (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST

You answer your won question:

"I can't even find a single normative judgment in it at all."

Therein lies the problem.


Shrug (none / 0) (#34)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST

That just makes him a law professor in my book. I don't have a problem with scholars analyzing these things in scholarly terms.

You've had many criticisms of Sunstein that were much more on target IMO. "He wrote a blog post about Hamdan without lambasting the dissenters" doesn't really do it for me.


Nonsense (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST

In 2002, he had a lot of normative judgments about the issue.

In 2005, he had a lot of normative judgments about warrantless wiretapping and those of us speaking out against us.

Have you read anything I have written on Sunstein? your comments seem incredibly misinformed.


Yes (none / 0) (#43)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:34:41 PM EST

When I respond to a post, I try to tell you what I think of the actual argument made in the post.

When I respond to a comment, I try to tell you what I think of the actual argument made in the comment.

When I say I don't have a problem with that particular post Sunstein wrote, I am not saying that I have no problem with anything else Sunstein has ever written. Nor am I saying that you have never made a good argument against Sunstein. I am simply trying to stay on-topic.

In my judgment, if someone were to ask me why they should be concerned about Sunstein, I would be unlikely to persuade them by showing them the post you linked. They might find it significant if they already understood the problems with Sunstein, but that wouldn't make it a persuasive argument, it would just mean that they're predisposed to agree with me.

I seem to recall praising you on numerous occasions where you made incisive points against Sunstein. In my opinion, this just wasn't one of those occasions!


In this post (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:38:41 PM EST

I quoted Cass Sunstein's statement in 2002 on military commissions. I then quoted the SCOTUS' decision in Hamdan.

I add the comment with his reaction to Hamdan for two reasons - one, it shows how disingenuous Sunstein is as he fails to discuss his own previous analysis and how the SCOTUS utterly rejected it (see especially his faulty analysis of Quirin); two, his lack of a NORMATIVE critique of what the Court should have done is his masking his own extremist views on the subject, views he was happy to share previously.

Sunstein is an extremely problematic person in the Obama circle to me. In my small way, I am looking to expose him.


: You may be right about Sunstein's (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by MKS on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST

views agreeing with Hiatt--and in this area better safe than sorry is the way to go....
If Sunstein is unclear (you may say he is all too clear), then that may be enough to stay away from him.

An advisor with a soft spot for fascism. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by lentinel on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST

Referring to Obama legal advisor Cass Sunstein, whose views you accurately describe as fascist, you wrote:
"These views are extreme and unacceptable. No one holding such views should have a place in an Obama Administration."

If this is a guy that Obama has chosen to "advise" him, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he wouldn't be granted a place in an Obama administration, should there be one.

Look at what Obama is doing. Look at the people he is surrounding himself with.

I have read more and more people expressing true apprehension at the thought of an Obama presidency. I am among them.

This does not mean that I or anyone else is supporting McCain.

But since we are leftists over here, presumably, why in God's name should we expressing any enthusiasm whatsoever about Obama? And what should we keep saying that we will support and/or vote for him?

: See the geopolitical attitude of Zbig... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM EST

...as a foreign policy advisor in his book about the Grand Chess Board; and then see how that meshes with shifting large numbers of troops to Central Asia.

: New acronym: FKD (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by lambert on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM EST

for the partyFormerly Known as Democratic.
Say it out loud....

In his long article about Obamaism... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
by citizen53 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST

Adolph Reed, Jr, said a whole lot, including this:

That's also an element of the logic we've been trapped in for 30 years, and it's one reason that things have gotten progressively worse, and that the bar of liberal expectations has been progressively lowered. It's also one of the especially dangerous things about Obama, that he threatens to go beyond any of his Dem predecessors in redefining their all-too-familiar capitulation as the boundary of the politically thinkable, as the substance of "progressivism."

The article is here.

Just taking a position that is less bad than the other side does not mean it is progressive.

: The article is NINE pages. (none / 0) (#80)
by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:07:42 AM EST

You said long. To me a long journal article is one that is over 30 pages. I went to the article and clicked print. My printer printed 96 pages. It turns out that the article is 9 pages. All the rest were comments. ...just so people know.

: My previous post was not a complaint (none / 0) (#81)
by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:17:39 AM EST

about the article. It's a great article. Thanks. Much appreciated.

As always, thanks BTD (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Dadler on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST

This kind of creeping fascism is so obvious it would be ludicrous were it not for so man Americans' inability to grasp it. Then again, it seems most Americans can't grasp the complete connection between our self-destructing economy and this debacle of a war. If we're really that unbearably stupid, we deserve the awful result. It must be the fault of teachers and unions. Ahem.

"Fascism" is a loaded term, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by HenryFTP on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST

but there is little doubt that we're sitting here calmly discussing the concept of the American Presidency as an elected dictatorship.

I may be painfully naïve, but I still find it amazingly outrageous that these ideas have acquired currency without any real public debate.

Our country faced down far more elemental threats from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union without suspending the writ of habeas corpus or resorting to torture. Terrorism has been a feature of life in advanced countries for at least two generations -- why all of sudden has the threat ramped up to the equivalent of rebellion and civil insurrection?

What I find deeply troubling is how uncannily effective the terrorists have been in striking at what appears to be the most profound fears of our craven elite. I find it repugnant that the elite apparently felt itself to be invulnerable and have reacted with abject willingness to destroy the values upon which the country was built in their frantic desire for security.

What is worse is that the leading advocates for tearing up our Constitution are lawyers who all take oaths to uphold it.

Having sown the wind 25 years ago by acquiescing in so much of the fantasist Reagan revision of our own history and rightward drift of our polity, surely now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Your kidding, right? (none / 0) (#53)
by bocajeff on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:52:10 PM EST

120,000 Americans had their property seized and were imprisoned (sorry, resettled) for nothing more than being Japanese. So we didn't beat back fascism without resorting to ridding ourselves of Habeas Corpus or subject some to torture? You cry (rightfully) over FISA and waterboarding, but you fail to understand or remember U.S. History. Not to mention indiscriminately bombing civilian cities and dropping nukes on civilians.


: And a stain it was on our country (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:02:22 PM EST

Why should we want to repeat it? why should Cass Sunstein erroneously rely on Quirin to support extreme policies?

"This is a step towards fascism" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Andreas on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:41:39 PM EST

The whole current regime in the United States of America is a "step towards fascism." This really is nothing new.

The real question must be: how to prevent fascism?

The last few years made clear that supporting the Democratic Party will not only not prevent fascism but help to pave the way for it.

Maybe if more people, like the (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by zfran on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST

people here, would care a tad more about politics in some manner, BTD's message might resonate-

Electorate is ill-informed..

in other words (4.00 / 1) (#12)
by Turkana on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST

hiatt thinks we need a kinder, gentler dictator.

Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:30:23 AM EST

I wonder if that power, Hiatt is aching for, stops with the press. Obviously not, Hiatt will provide names and stay vigilant, he is no commie traitor.

Hrm (none / 0) (#5)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST

Hiatt is specifically talking about non-citizens in that quote, which makes it quite different from the power claimed by Pinochet et al. I'm obviously not one of the "non-citizens have no rights whatsoever" people, but a reasonable detention is quite different from throwing someone in a hole indefinitely.

How exactly do you see Hiatt limiting (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST

his statement to foreign nationals?

The partagraph in its entirety reads:

But modern realities strongly argue against using the federal courts as the exclusive arena to hold or try all terrorism suspects. Most terrorism prosecutions, including the 1993 World Trade Center case, are brought after terrorists have struck. The first priority of a president must be to protect the country from attack. The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges.

Clearly, Jose Padilla, an American citizen, would be encompassed in Hiatt's statement.

Your statement that Hiatt is "specifically talking about non-citizens" is not in any way supported by the words of Hiatt's statement.

And indeed, the Fourth Circuit has said there is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in this context.

Your comment is incorrect.


This entire sentence is loaded (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Fabian on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST

What is "legal flexibility"? What is "credible, actionable evidence"? Who determines what constitutes "credible, actionable evidence"? How long can a detainee be held? How much of this process is public? What prevents this concept from becoming a legal black hole?


That is why it is a step towards fascism (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST

It's a step to a seamless (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST

synthesis of policy between two political parties, in preparation for the formal hand over of power.


Right, Obama is the one chosen to (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:29:37 PM EST

continue the most important Bush policies.


You guys really make me laugh. (none / 0) (#27)
by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:38:50 PM EST

hey, an Obama loss in November (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by MarkL on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST

will have me rolling on the floor laughing for days. How about you?


There is less and less space (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST

between the two every day. part of that is electioneerig of course...but the other part of it is about a carefully choreographed hand over.


Tinfoil hat BS. (none / 0) (#63)
by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST

Didn't know TL was cool with that garbage.


you have to be kidding? (none / 0) (#69)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST

have you caught the Sunstien theme that BTD is developing?

And again, they are both rapidly converging to some sort of central consensus. The Broderatti and Gergenites demand it of them.


It's now tinfoil to observe (none / 0) (#71)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:16:46 PM EST

the rush of the candidates to the dead center. lol. What exactly are you defending Pegasus? Bellerephon the magnificent?


"carefully choreographed"?? (1.00 / 1) (#72)
by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:28:40 PM EST

Choreographed by whom? The Illuminati? You make yourself into a punchline when you start saying there's deliberate coordination happening across party lines in the US.


: You think the Bush administration is (none / 0) (#82)
by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST

not seeking assurances there will be no criminal prosecutions after November? Really?
Are you, like, naive or something?

The King (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM EST

Let's look at this again (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST

Read the quote in the context of the preceding paragraph:

We agree that those terrorism-related cases that can be brought in federal court should be brought in federal court. We also believe that U.S. citizens must be tried in that venue and that enemies captured on the battlefield during conventional conflicts must be held under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
But modern realities strongly argue against using the federal courts as the exclusive arena to hold or try all terrorism suspects. Most terrorism prosecutions, including the 1993 World Trade Center case, are brought after terrorists have struck. The first priority of a president must be to protect the country from attack. The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges.

"Must be tried in that venue" sounds pretty conclusive to me. If he's somehow talking about U.S. citizens even in the latter paragraph, then I of course agree with you, but I'm not sure I'm the one who's misreading.

What has Hiatt written about the specific issue of Jose Padilla?


Indeed Steve (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST

What HAS Hiatt written about Jose Padilla? What DID Hiatt write about the Al-Marru decision? What did he write about the Hamdan decision, which is at the center of the problem this editorial purports to be about?

Your perspective is lacking here imop. Tremendously lacking. At this point, I would have a problem with YOU as an Obama advisor on civil liberties issues. They seem to me to be of little importance in your thinking.


Well (none / 0) (#39)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:28:50 PM EST

Maybe you should have a problem, although if you had a choice between me or the actual legal advisors President Obama is likely to listen to, a word of advice: choose me! But look, just because I'm an absolutist on constitutional rights for citizens but a shade less than an absolutist for non-citizens, I don't think that makes me a bad person.

Our disagreement seems to involve understanding what Hiatt actually wrote in this editorial, not an issue of any substance. I think he was arguing for "legal flexibility" only where non-citizens are involved; you think he was talking about US citizens as well. If I accept your interpretation, then I agree with you 100% on the merits. The Constitution absolutely does not permit what was done to Jose Padilla.


None of this makes anyone a bad person (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST

It makes them someone I do not want in an Obama Administration.

Look, it ois not a big issue for you. It is for me.

I argue for my point of view. You argue for yours.

That's the way it goes.

Boumediene, Hamdi, Rasul and Hamdan are critical cases that were decided by divided courts. Someone like Sunstein would have voted with the extreme right wing positions in those cases, as he himself has written.

I think it is important that people know that.

The Al-Marri case is another important case sure to be before the SCOTUS. It is a critical case. The Padilla situation was as egregious a situation as could be imagined. Fred hiatt and Cass Sunstein were comfortable with the Bush administration actions there.

That is my point here. These are "Cass sunstein" liberals and they must be discredited as actual "liberal" voices. That is what I am about in these posts.


To be clear (none / 0) (#48)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST

Just in case you end up getting to vote on my confirmation, I strongly disagree with the Bush Administration position in every single one of those cases!

Then again, I don't go around relying on cases like Ex Parte Quirin where the President basically held a gun to the Supreme Court's head to get the result he wanted. I guess that makes me a poor advocate for presidential power, now doesn't it. That's why Obama won't be hiring me.


The question then is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST

are you comfortable with the idea of a Cass Susntein being appointed to the Court by Obama? the question is are you comfortable with a Cass Sunstrein playing a mjor role in an Obama Adminsitration?

I admit I am very uncomfortable with the idea and am very committed to getting out the facts about Cass Sunstein's views on these critical issues.


: No (5.00 / 3) (#58)
by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM EST

I find it very sad that Sunstein is a likely candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy and that there will likely be little liberal opposition if that comes to pass. I think he should be absolutely disqualified.

it' called internment (none / 0) (#15)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:35:36 PM EST

The IRA' bpombing campaign provoked similar meaures.

Although, the suspects were charged and tried. And later aquitted of course.

terrorism tends to create the coditions for emergency powers, doesn't it?

I suggest the US take terrorism a bit less seriously as a threat, stop the "internment policies" and escalations against the Taliban, file Al Qaeda activities under espionage and kill the targets on sight. Shoot to kill brings its own problem but it keeps the legal process out of the mix.


But in the meantime... (none / 0) (#36)
by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:20:08 PM EST

tons of innocent people got reeled in under the same dragnet and held for quite a while. That...ummm...did very little to help ease the growing tensions between the Nationalist community and pretty much everyone in power from the Unionist led gov't to the British military.

There's a pretty interesting piece about over at the CAIN website: "Internment."


There would have been a pogrom (none / 0) (#60)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:39:29 PM EST

of the Irish residing in England had the government not been seen to act.

After Birmingham the Irish in london and Manchester were looking around nervously.


as it is... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST

we've learned nothing from the past when it comes to dealing with a heavy fisted CT strategy.


as it was... (none / 0) (#61)
by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST

the anti-terrorism legislation helped bring into being juryless trials (Diplock Courts) and allowed the authorities put most of an entire family like the Maguires in prison for years on a smidge of evidence.


yup (none / 0) (#70)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST

all (almost) the convictions were overturned. But that was never the point of the effort.


: The downsides and tragedies... (none / 0) (#73)
by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST

are rarely the point of the effort. They're what happens when folks go so far overboard that they forget the actual point of the effort.

Someone needs to ask Fred (and Cass) (none / 0) (#8)
by pluege on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST

when we stopped speaking of crimes as crimes and started calling them "sins". I do not believe "sin" is a legal term.

bush and the entire top echelon of his regime are criminals - there can no longer be any doubt. They have committed crimes against the Constitution, the rule of law, and humanity. The only thing missing are their trials.

already there (none / 0) (#9)
by pluege on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST

This is a step towards fascism.

This implies that we could be on the way to fascism. The reality is that we were on the road to it since reagan. Under bush/cheney and the significant propagandizing corporate media support for unchecked presidential authority, indefinite detention, elimination of Habeas corpus, rendition, black sites, and torture, we - the USA - are in fact a fascist state.

That the Fred Hiatt's of the corporate media world can make fascists statements without a huge backlash is just proof that the US is already a fascist state, not having the potential for it.

: The press didn't stop being fascists... (none / 0) (#16)
by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST

...that cloudy day in springfield 2007. They operation till rumbles on.

A Constitutional lawyer would cite . . . (none / 0) (#42)
by wurman on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST

. . . Article II, Section 2, US Constitution:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

And, perhaps in some specific cases, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The existence of the FISA Court, all types of Star Chambers, & the uses of a great many Grand Juries are in total defiance of the Constitution.

I can't be sure that ignoring these really very simple rules equates to fascism (which probably requires several specific government behaviors), but it seems totally anti-Constitutional.

And these anti-Constitutional acts are done by lawyers, usually on some government payroll, often in the Dept. of Justice. How quaint.