Please define the word "invader"

[daveleau]

America is the land of civil rights and humanitarianism and we pride ourselves in how just we are. Recently, many Americans have cried out over the capture and imprisonment of people without charging them with anything in the wake of 9/11. Habeas Corpus is a check in our Constitution that keeps the government from imprisoning people or subjecting them to state action without due process.

Habeas corpus enters into the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 and it states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

My question pertains to these people who are imprisoned in our jails because they were found to have ties to terrorist organizations and were characterized as sleeper agents and those that support terrorism.

Should these people be termed "invaders"?
According to www.dictionary.com (Websters), they are.

in·vade Pronunciation Key (n-vd)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v. tr.
1- To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2- To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
3- To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
4- To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

Since these people can be considered invaders, and since they obviously pose a substantial threat to the US by supporting terrorists, are they not exactly where they should be?

Dave

[Nixona]

It's all in the definition. Keeping the union strong, together, and free from terror is the greater good. People who come to the US "To enter and permeate, especially harmfully." Should be held in captivity until government officials can figure out what the best course of action is. There was one man identified as a US citizen, he was taken care of. Do you see any other countries or officials calling for a release of our prisoners in Cuba? No. No one wants them, claims them, or wants to be associated with them and their "alleged" activities. Regardless of race, color, religion, etc, these particular people were identified in plots of terrorism against our country. From now on, prevention is key. Is it worth another 3,000 lives to second guess our leaders?

I voted Yes because these are invaders by any standards.

But this is a never ending question. Weren't the Spanish/Portugese invaders when they took land from the indigenous populations?

Or when land was taken from Palestine to resettle the Jews in the 1940s?

[Theophylact]

daveleau, I assume that the phrase in cases of rebellion or invasion refers to the country, not the individual rebel or invader. We're not in a state of rebellion (as in the Civil War) or invasion (as in the War of 1812) that would require -- or, indeed, allow -- such a suspension of habeas corpus. Certainly no such state has been declared. And I really worry about justifying such a suspension with phrases such as "were found to have ties to" and "were characterized as". You could toss anyone in the slammer that way. The purpose of habeas corpus is to prevent the unjustified jailing of people without due process: right to an attorney, right to hear one's accusers, right of appeal, right to speedy trial, right to trial by one's peers, the whole schmeer. If the nation isn't in a state of rebellion, then even if I rebel, I'm entitled to due process.

[daveleau]

A few questions to ponder...

Since the invader is not a country with an organized military, would these not pertain to anyone who could do harm?

Do you consider what these people did to be a henous act?

Have these people not proven that they are as dangerous as anyone who has stood against us so far?

Did they not show us our bloodiest day since the battle of Antietam?

Would the rights of American's not supercede the rights of people whose sole purpose is to do us harm?

As I have quoted before, Abraham Lincoln had a telling story that suits this point.

A speech by Lincoln in his 1864 campaign:
"The Shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shephard as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as a destroyer of liberty"
-Lincoln on Leaderhip by Phillips

Are we not liberating the American people by keeping these murderers and their supporters from doing us more harm? Who are we protecting? Would we not be doing ourselves more harm by letting these people do what they want and plan another 9/11? Would this not do our population more harm?

Where does it make the distinction that the invading force has to be organized and a country? I believe they thought it would be a nation, but these people have shown to be just as dangerous as the Soviets of the Cold War.

[daveleau]

Originally posted by shahani
Weren't the Spanish/Portugese invaders when they took land from the indigenous populations?

I understand your point, but many things have changed since then. There was no centralized government to stand on its own. This does not make this act the correct one, but if we continue to rehash the distant past, we will dig up tons of skeletons that no one can answer. I think we must act in ways to not repeat our mistakes of the past. I think we are doing a superb job of this. But, there is a point where our humanitarianism becomes weakness because we begin to think in more emotional terms and less logically. Those who call for the release of Gitmo prisoners and people like the Floridian collegiate professor who blatantly funded the Hamas and suicide bombers are not thinking logically and putting them in the evil-doers shoes that these people need to be in.

[cowboybooter]

I agree with Nixona that the cause for the 'greater good' should prevail. Whilst it is not ideal to imprison people for non-specific links to terrorist organisations, at least protection is afforded to both camps by internment.

Sometimes shorter term harm to individuals' freedom is necessary to protect the "greater good". An example of this is public health legislation, where food establishments may be shut down in light of suspicion of poor food handling leading to a food poisoning outbreak. The owners will scream their freedom is being abused, but it is for the "greater good", until evidence exonerates them.

We had a case here a few years ago where a large fruit juice packager was shut down and all of their products removed from stores because of a suspicion of contaminated products, which was later proved that some of the fruit the got from suppliers was highly contaminated. The company fully co-operated, but civil libertarians screamed that they had had their rights abused.

Protection for the "greater good" sometimes means steps need to be taken where otherwise it might be seen to be a breach of rights. I agree with the steps taken by US authorities in light of the terrorist threat. At least they didn't just shoot them

IMO.

Cheers
Mick

[Theophylact]

Daveleau, you seem to miss the point. There's no reason the people you describe as

Gitmo prisoners and people like the Floridian collegiate professor who blatantly funded the Hamas and suicide bombers
.

can't receive due process. If they're dangerous, or a flight risk, deny them bail, allow them due process, and let the state make the case that they are what it asserts they are!

If you really think it's okay to let the Government lock up anyone it says is a threat, without access to lawyer, jury, or appeal, you might as well surrender right now: you have no rights worth having, just mere survival. I'm with Ben Franklin on this one: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[caddmannq]

Aren't these people "agents of unfriendly powers"?
Can't we just shoot them as spies?