Tom Ridge: Terror suspect doesn't deserve 'full range' of rights

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: CNN.COM

(CNN) -- The man who allegedly lit an explosive on board a U.S.-bound international flight deserves none of the constitutional protections afforded American citizens, a former top Bush administration official said Monday.

Tom Ridge, who served as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005, made the comments on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I take a look at this individual who has been charged criminally, does that mean he gets his Miranda warnings? The only information we get is if he volunteers it?" Ridge said. "He's not a citizen of this country. He's a terrorist, and I don't think he deserves the full range of protections of our criminal justice system embodied in the Constitution of the United States."



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/29/lkl.tom.ridge.terrorism/index.html

[Solly Mack]

1. Oh, we know what someone who worked for Bush thinks he deserves.

[Bluebear]

2. Ridge is irritated he can't waterboard him. Not that this Administration would prosecute him

[Goldstein1984]

3. If U.S. citizens want due process according to the laws of other

nations, then we must grant due process under our own laws to non-residents within our borders.

That is, unless we're going to do more of the "enemy combatant" and "non-person" nonsense from the Bush/Cheney Error.

Either we are a nation of laws with a Bill of Rights, or we are not. (Granted, that's in dispute right now.)

Either we are what WE say we are, or we are what THEY claim we are.

[No Elephants]

4. Ridge, you shill. STFU. No killer DESERVES the protections of the Constitution, even if he or she

is an American citizen. People don't enjoy being murdered by a "furriner" less than being killed by someone born in the U.S. or naturalized. Talk about a warped perspective!

Constitutional protections exist for the benefit of people who are accused, but innocent, whether by insanity, or false witness or whatever.

Who the hell is Ridge to say what people deserve, anyway? This shill had the country going from chartreuse to puce to taupe to fuschia during his tenure, as though a color code actually helped keep us safe. What a freakin' joke. And raised it to help Bush. (Says he didn't, but PUH-lease, compare the timing of the highest alerts other things going on in the news at the time.)

And since when did he become a Constitutional law expert, let alone a SCOTUS Justice?

From what I hear, Ridge may have more integrity than many Republicants, but that don't impress me much, given the average.

[Demeter]

5. Your 15 Minutes Are Over, Mr. Ridge. All That's Left Is Your Trial

and the sooner, the better.

[RayStar]

16. Trial time

Cheney, Rice and Cheney jr AKA Liz can join him.

[jaxx]

6. They didn't mind trying Richard Reid in federal court here, did they?

You have to laugh at the hypocrites who ignore what they did and condemn Obama now. Reid was a British citizen, not an American.

Go back under your rock Tom.

[FSogol]

7. Tom Ridge needs a refresher course in Democracy & the US Constitution. n/t

[Moosepoop]

8. He needs to be introduced to them first. n/t

[WriteDown]

9. Technically he is right...

Considering he is not a citizen, he is not automatically entitled to US Constitution protections. Should he have been interrogated more before he lawyered up? That is a subject for vigorous debate.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. "Technically" according to whom?

I have never heard anyone other than a Bush nutcase claim that a person arrested on American soil and charged with a federal crime wasn't subject to the full spectrum of punishments and protections afforded by our legal system. The thought of torturing someone obviously has you excited, but sorry, due process has no citizenship test.

[WriteDown]

23. Try FDR. nt

[bowens43]

30. FDR has nothing to say about it. FDR did not make law. nt

[WriteDown]

32. Tell that to the Japanese-Americans kept in internment camps...

Or the spies hung after their mail was opened.

[DefenseLawyer]

67. I'm sorry for my imprecise response

I should have said I know of no one other than cranks who CURRENTLY hold that view. Your historical reference is meaningless, however. The internment of the Japanese (many of whom were American citizens, by the way) has been roundly condemned as illegal since that time and no one would cite it as a valid precedent. It is like if I said slavery was illegal and you said, "Jefferson Davis would beg to differ!". You would have a point that was just as meaningless.

[No Elephants]

70. Right wing Tourette's. Throw out a bad analogy involving a Democrat,

no matter how inapposite that analogy may be to the subject actually at hand.

Hoover sucked. So did Dummya. So do scores of Republicans None of them have much to do with Ridge's statement, either.

[bowens43]

29. You are absolutely wrong.

The rights guaranteed by our Constitution are not dependent on US citizenship. He absolutely IS 'automatically entitled to US Constitution protections' if he is in US custody.

[WriteDown]

31. Once again...

Try looking up FDR. We used to open people's mail and hang them if they were found to be spies.

[Bette Noir]

46. And you want to keep doing that?

[WriteDown]

50. I was simply refuting post 15...

The issue is daunting to say the least.

[No Elephants]

71. You refuted nothing. To refute post 15, you would have had to cite a SCOTUS case contradicting

Reply 15 and supporting your original statement, with which Reply 15 disagreed. Bringing up what FDR did during WWII did neither.

[1monster]

53. And because wrong was done during a period of hysteria, wrong is right now?

Last I heard, an apology had been issued to the Americans of Japanese descent who were interred during World War II by the United States Government.

And the interment has been castigated was wrong and unconstitutional for decades.

[WriteDown]

56. The internment was one of many issues...

but I was simply refuting post 15.

[No Elephants]

72. Yes, one of many issues that has nothing to do with this thread and refutes nothing.

BTW, the US formally apologized to Japanese Americans for the internment and paid reparations of over 1.6 billion. So, your throwing up that dust hardly proves that denying rights is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Further, most of those interned were American citizens, so the internment had absolutely nothing to do with Constitional rights of those who are not citizens of the U.S. And World War II is hardly comparable to today's situation anyway.

So, your goal does not seem to be refuting any argument grounded in the Constitution, but rather seems to be smearing a Democratic President who, despite his shortcomings, is considered a great one. Or confusing the issue and deflect criticism away from Republicans like Ridge and their idea of the Constitution. Or all three.

In any event, you've neither supported your own point nor refuted the disagreement of it contained in Reply 15.

[verges]

57. And it was wrong then too.

Also, many of the internees at the Japanese Internment Camps were American citizens.

Roosevelt did much good. But he was not perfect.

[Qutzupalotl]

74. That is how I see it too.

I don't see any disclaimers in our Constitution that the rights described therein apply only to our citizens.

The founders believed that these rights were inalienable and came from our creator, not from any man-made legal system. In practice, this means we can't say one person deserves rights and another doesn't.

[CynicalObserver]

60. i agree with you, but you seem to be the lone voice of

rationality on this thread.

The civil liberties of western nations were not designed in an environment like what we have today with radical islam mass-destruction suicide attack and terrorism in general, and are not, as they are currently interpreted, able to stand up to them.

The US seems to be now trying to set up the legal system to give as much protection and publicity as possible to persons such as the one who nearly took out the northwest flight.

[No Elephants]

73. You've outed yourself--and so soon, too.

BTW, the Constitution was written after the American Revolution overthrew government of the colonies by the British, including by civilian colonists committing many acts that the British could rightfully have considered terrorist acts. So, I think you may want to brush up a bit on your history and what the Constitution may or may not have been designed for.

If you think the Constitution of the United States was so ill conceived that it is now outdated, you owe it to the nation to get it amended. But a nation that does not obey its own highest law whenever that law seems inconvenient is a POS.

What the Constitution probably was not designed for was someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, but he got its benefits anyway.

[No Elephants]

69. Should members of the Bin Laden family been interrogated more before being flown out of the country

in secret right after 911, when no American citizen was able to fly anywhere?

I don't feel any better--or any worse--about a American mass murderer wannabe, naturalized or foreign born, getting Constitutional rights than I do about an unnaturalized mass murder wannabe getting them. Again, neither is ENTITLD to those rights from any moral standpoint. We afford those rights to protect the innocent.

I do, however, feel bad about the Bin Ladins getting more rights than Americans right after 911. I got stuck in Houston for a freakin' week or more, since my tickets were for 911 and my destination was Logan, which was closed longer than any other airport. And I had zero potention for any info at all about Bin Ladin.

[Lost Jaguar]

10. This issue of Constitutional rights...

...has befuddled me for some time. It has been my impression that the Constitution recognizes certain rights that all people have, simply by virtue of being human. The Constitution does not grant these rights, it restricts the federal government from denying or abridging them.

A monk in a monastery in Ladakh, a piece-worker in an Indonesian sweatshop, a vagabond traveling Europe, they all have these rights. The difference, ideally, is that in this country, those rights are codified and recognized by our government.

Am I wrong in this concept?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. A missionary sneaking into North Korea

will probably find his rights are somewhat limited.

But the inept Nigerian bomber should probably have the same rights as any Prisoner of War, and be humanely housed until the war is over. The confusing part of that is, which war? The war in Iraq? Afghanistan? The war between us and Al Qaeda? The holy war?

[Lost Jaguar]

19. I realize...

...that the vast majority of people in this cruel world are oppressed and exploited. My point is that they do indeed have these rights, or should I say, they are owed them, even though the government they live under may not recognize them.

My beloved country, inconsistent as it has been in respecting these rights, is supposed to be the one that enshrines them. Now I fear that no one is safe anywhere. If our president can arbitrarily and capriciously determine that anyone can be detained indefinitely without due process, what hope is there anywhere else?

[WriteDown]

24. ?

What exact rights are you talking about?

[Lost Jaguar]

45. My primary concern would be the rights...

...described in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A person accused of a crime might hope to retain the rights that are recognized in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments.

[Bette Noir]

47. War can only be declared by Congress. There is no war,

and therefore no prisoners of war.

What we have in custody are criminals and kidnap victims. Only trials can determine which are which.

[No Elephants]

79. Are we at war with NIgeria? He should have whatever rights our laws say he should have.

[christx30]

21. One idea

I heard bandied about for a while is to treat people with the same rights as they would have in their home countries. A British person arrested here would have the same rights as if he were arrested in the UK. A Saudi would be treated as if he were arrested in Saudi Arabia, and so forth.

[CJCRANE]

43. What if they were aristocrats

who had greater privileges in their own country?

That makes no sense to have different laws for different people.

[No Elephants]

77. Some international copyright conventions say something like that, regarding how much

copyright protection we would give a work by an author from another signatory country and how much copyright protection another signatory country would give a work by one of our authors. And, I've heard that we want to obey the Geneva Conventions and the 1976 Convention against torture so that we don't give countries an excuse to mistreats Americans they capture. (That ship may have sailed under Dummya, but that's another story.) However, AFIK, our Constitution says nothing similar.

If we were to amend the Constitution along those lines, though, I would prefer giving a foreign national the same rights his or her nation would give a captured or suspected American under the same circumstances, not the same rights another country would give its own nationals.

[treestar]

51. I agree, though the SCOTUS has decided they don't apply to aliens

outside the U.S. - there's a case on FBI agents doing a search in Mexico - I believe they let that evidence in, though the search would not pass muster in the U.S.

The D.C. Circuit said aliens outside the U.S. can't file civil cases against the U.S. - SCOTUS denied cert. on that case.

[mbperrin]

55. Exactly right. The government does not grant rights. The government

must be kept from abridging our rights.

And absolutely, when we treat people from other countries badly, then what moral argument do we have when US citizens abroad are?

Example: one missionary goes into North Korea illegally and openly. If he were hung out to dry by the North Korean government, there would be such an outcry: OMG! He's a US citizen! We've got to do everything to get him back and treated nicely, even though he did break a sovereign country's laws.

Besides, the abrogation of anyone's rights by the US government is simply an admission that open societies don't work and must always revert to authoritarianism under the slightest pressure.

Ben Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[No Elephants]

78. If the laws of a monk's country permit hanging the monk without a trial,

you can argue that the monk SHOULD have a right to a trial before being hung, but I don't think you can argue that actually does have that right.


Unless you have a way to enforce a right, I don't think it exists.


There are, of course, lots of people who believe that people have natural rights. I think people probably SHOULD have some natural rights, but I don't think they actually do have them.

[ScottLand]

11. Just what DOES the Constitution say regarding how we

are to treat foreign-born prisoners? Why is there so much confusion about what our values should be? If we continue to behave in this way, how do we still have the gall to say we're the good guys?

[Jim Lane]

68. The Constitution says, "Tom Ridge has his head up his butt, as usual."

Of course, it's couched in somewhat less vulgar terms. Nevertheless, there's no confusion on the point.

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis added)

Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." (emphasis added)

These rights are not limited to citizens. As a matter of Constitutional law, it is crystal clear that Ridge's statement is wrong.

What's less clear is whether the terrorists will achieve their objective of terrorizing us so much that we abandon principles we've held for more than two centuries. Current indications are that the terrorists, with the aid of people like Ridge, have a good chance of achieving that objective.

[tomg]

13. I owe Tom Ridge a lot.

He just reminded me to send in my dues renewal to the ACLU.

[Frisbee]

14. Funny, I feel the same way about...

suspected war criminals.

[lazer47]

17. He should have decent rights and a decent trial just like everyone else, and then

should be decently hanged

[Vinca]

18. We don't need no stinkin' rights. Set up the gallows.

I thought Ridge, Cheney and the rest of them would be hiding under the bed since the guy is being held in . . . sit down for this . . . a prison on American soil! We're all going to die!!

[earthlite]

20. He's not a terror suspect

He's a prisoner of an illegal war who should be released with all the rest. We should be the ones on trial.

[lazer47]

22. Would you say the same thing if the bomb had worked?

and 300 people had been killed??

[earthlite]

25. Yes I would.

We started this illegal war so we deserve to lose it. 300 dead barely compares to how many civilians the US have killed.

[Robb]

26. Wow.

I feel dumber just having read your post.

[earthlite]

34. So are you saying

that American civilian casualties are worse than others? How elitist and racist of you.

[WriteDown]

36. Purposely targeting civilians?

Yes, it is worse.

[earthlite]

39. When we target civilians we can only expect they will do the same

nt

[WriteDown]

40. Please link to the US targeting civilians in the last 2 decades. nt

[WriteDown]

27. Which illegal war?

Afghanistan? Yemen?

[earthlite]

33. Depends what time frame you want to use.

I guess you could start with the support of Israel or the Shah of Iran several decades ago or any involvement in the Middle East we have had since.

[WriteDown]

35. Support of Israel? Ah, I see....

Wouldn't you need to go back to the Ottoman Empire and then the Great Arab Uprising then? You really need to take this up with the League of Nations.

[No Elephants]

81. Please don't ever break the mementum of my contempt again.

But, I must admit that was a clever post.

[lazer47]

37. Doesn't matter if it is Illegal now or not,, I for one am not going

subscribe to the notion that these people can kill, maim, and destroy what ever they want, and I am just going to roll over and die,because somebody else started this insane war,, Illegal or not.

[No Elephants]

80. And here I thought this thread was only about whether "the Nigerian guy" had a right

to habeas corpus, a trial and a lawyer.

Well, I don't think people have a right to kill and maim whatever and whenever they want, either. But I think we've given some people a lot of reasons to hate us and probably should try to stop giving them more reasons. Then again, I think it may be too late. I see another several generations hating us a lot, for a lot of reasons.

[Ian David]

28. It doesn't matter if THEY deserve the full range of rights.

JUSTICE DEMANDS they get the full range of rights.

You ALWAYS give them all their rights, whether THEY deserve them or not, because that's the only way to ensure that WE get OUR rights when WE deserve them.

[Xenotime]

38. Fuck you, Tom. You did more harm to this nation than anyone else.

[No Elephants]

82. More thtan Dummya, Rummy, Condi, Cheney and Powell?

I can agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, but I see a few exceptions to your second sentence.

[marshall]

41. Big Sis is in charge now, so STFU!

She's on it.

[old mark]

42. "Country First" republicans - halt any effort to help US people, scrap the Constitution.

Great bunch of folks.

mark

[Jefferson23]

44. Oh screw you Ridge, his line is all about saving the Bush legacy.

On edit to add: Tuesday, Dec 29, 2009 06:30 EST
Cause and effect in the "Terror War"
By Glenn Greenwald

"In all their alleged allegedness, this Administration has an allergy to the concept of war, and thus to the tools of war, including strategy and war aims" -- Supreme Tough Guy Warrior Mark Steyn, National Review, yesterday.

"The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.'s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan" -- New York Times, December 4, 2009.



"In the midst of two unfinished major wars, the United States has quietly opened a third, largely covert front against Al Qaeda in Yemen" -- New York Times, yesterday.


_______

Actually, if you count our occupation of Iraq, our twice-escalated war in Afghanistan, our rapidly escalating bombing campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and various forms of covert war involvement in Somalia, one could reasonably say that we're fighting five different wars in Muslim countries -- or, to use the NYT's jargon, "five fronts" in the "Terror War" (Obama yesterday specifically mentioned Somalia and Yemen as places where, euphemistically, "we will continue to use every element of our national power"). Add to those five fronts the "crippling" sanctions on Iran many Democratic Party luminaries are now advocating, combined with the chest-besting threats from our Middle East client state that the next wars they fight against Muslims will be even "harsher" than the prior ones, and it's almost easier to count the Muslim countries we're not attacking or threatning than to count the ones we are. Yet this still isn't enough for America's right-wing super-warriors, who accuse the five-front-war-President of "an allergy to the concept of war."

article in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/29/terrorism

[Lars39]

48. This buffoon?

[treestar]

49. What will be the difficulty of convicting him?

There were witnesses right there.

This idiot still.does.not.get.it.

[WriteDown]

52. The issue is never about conviction...

but in getting them to reveal information.

[CJCRANE]

58. Seems like he already blabbed

just about everything already.

The enhanced interrogation techniques under Bushco were more about destroying information or creating false information.

[WriteDown]

59. I have no clue...

I wonder what he's said though.

[Metta]

54. Jeez oh Pete. Happy karma, Tom. Classism at its finest. The laws represent *us,* Tom.

With a dollop of racism thrown in?

[Politicub]

61. Either rights are inalienable or they are not

You can't have it both ways. There should be rights that are the birthright of every human being, regardless of nationality. If someone in power gets to pick and choose which rights to confer like shopping in a supermarket, then who's to say that your rights won't be trimmed down because of some perceived crime you committed, before a jury of your peers has a chance to find you guilty.

[MisterP]

62. can the BND pleeeease nab this guy and try him at Nuremburg? nt

[KakistocracyHater]

63. typical Neocon, taking advantage of people's fear & rage......why not throw

out your OWN "rights" too............oh, wait.......
nevermind.

[EFerrari]

64. Another war criminal chimes in.

[fascisthunter]

65. then neither does anyone else "deserve 'full range' of rights"

because before you can call somebody a terrorist, you better prove it first in a court of law. We Americans would like a little proof before you start acting like a bunch of boot stompin' nazis. I think giving ANY government power like this is like begging for a totalitarian system to take over.

[daleo]

66. Human rights are human rights

The idea that rights are provisional on citizenship is troubling. It seems to me that it undermines theories of human rights as being inviolable.

Contract theories of rights imply that rights really belong to the person as a natural consequence of humanity, and that people can contract together via government to sustain and enhance the enjoyment of those natural rights, sometimes agreeing to curtail the enjoyment of some individual rights for the good of all.

Making rights provisional on citizenship of a particular nation seems to imply that rights are conferred by a nation's government rather than being a natural fact of human status. Something that a government can grant is something that a government can take away, from foreigners and citizens.

[ProudDad]

75. Tom Ridge needs a free plane ride to the Hague

to stand in the dock next to bush, cheney, rumsfeld and the rest of his war criminal friends.

In a just world, that's where they'd all be...

Actually, in a just world they would have never gotten near any elective office...

Nor would Obama or Reid or Pelosi or lie-ber-man or any of the corporate funded fucks who stink up the White House and the Halls of Congress...

[New Dawn]

76. Tom Ridge = Neocon war criminal.