
Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th Amendment - mtgx
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/
======
suprgeek
Technically the fifth amendment was abandoned the Minute the US began
imprisoning/killing people without trials. the drone wars are a great example
of this.

The fifth amendment uses the word "PERSON" not citizen. So in some sense this
is just a continuation of the same - what is applicable to a "military age
male" in Afghanistan is now applicable to a American Joe Q Public.

This is an excellent wake-up call - do not gut American values to (notionally)
protect the American People.

~~~
rayiner
Nobody thinks the framers intended the 5th amendment to cover military age
males in Afghanistan. That's just ridiculous.

~~~
gknoy
When I read the text of the amendment, I think that they very much would have
considered it to cover everyone.

"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;"

Our declaration of independence says that "We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal" -- ALL men. Not just American men. I
think those two, taken together, imply that the founders would have meant for
the 5th amendment to cover American men, Englishmen, Frenchmen, and natives of
foreign lands which they had not heard of yet.

~~~
dctoedt
1\. Assume for the sake of argument that imprisonment of suspected terrorists
without trial violates the Fifth Amendment. The question then becomes: What
must the government _do_ about the violation --- that is, what is the
prisoner's _remedy_?

A) The canonical remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the writ of habeas corpus
[1]. When a court issues "the Great Writ," it orders the prisoner's jailer(s)
to bring the prisoner to court and, by implication, to release the prisoner if
the court so directs.

B) Article 1 of the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to _suspend_
habeas corpus --- in other words, to strip from courts the authority to order
the release of prisoners --- "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it." [2] Nothing in the Fifth Amendment alters this
congressional power of suspension.

C) It might be argued that in enacting the Patriot Act, Congress _partially_
suspended habeas corpus in response to the "Invasion" we call 9/11.

D) The courts try to interpret the various parts of the Constitution to be in
harmony with one another if at all possible.

E) So, "properly" interpreted, the Fifth Amendment might not stand in the way
of imprisonment without trial in a case covered by a congressional suspension
of habeas corpus. (The breadth of this possibility troubles me, incidentally;
also, I'm far from a constitutional scholar.)

\------------

2\. As to whether the Constitution prohibits killing an enemy combatant in
wartime without individualized due process in each case: That'd be a really,
_really_ tough sell, not least because if that principle had been followed,
the U.S. would not long have survived as an independent state.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus>

[2] U.S. Const., art. 1, sec. 9,
<http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html>

~~~
neumann_alfred
_"It might be argued that in enacting the Patriot Act, Congress partially
suspended habeas corpus in response to the "Invasion" we call 9/11."_

Even if someone _did_ argue for that, which you didn't do, they would argue
that 9/11 was an "invasion", not an invasion. See how that works?

Also, the perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia mostly, yet Iraq was attacked,
talking about how he's an evil man which had fuck all to do with him attacking
the US. That's kinda where your whole post falls down like a house of cards.
Remember Powell before the UN, with a dry throat and sweating a lot, showing
his slides about what might be mobile WMD labs? Heh. No, to anyone not
accomplice to it, or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, this is rather clear.
And it's old. Americans have been warning Americans for a century now. The
military industrial complex doesn't do this since lately.

 _As to whether the Constitution prohibits killing an enemy combatant in
wartime without individualized due process in each case: That'd be a really,
really tough sell_

If you simply define "military age males" who died in drone attacks as those,
then they're not really enemy combatants, they're "enemy combatants", which
raises the same issue as the "invasion" stuff does. Also, simply attacking
people and calling it war doesn't make it "wartime". Just saying "it's war!"
doesnt make it war.

~~~
dctoedt
> _... they would argue that 9/11 was an "invasion", not an invasion. See how
> that works?_

Um, no, I don't.

> _Also, the perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia mostly, yet Iraq was attacked
> ...._

I must be missing something here, like what that has to do with the current
constitutional discussion.

> _Remember Powell before the UN, with a dry throat and sweating a lot ...._

That's not the way I remember Powell's UN WMD presentation.

~~~
neumann_alfred
Guh. Just guh.

------
rdl
There seems to be some political calculus where it makes sense to pass
unconstitutional but popular laws, then let the courts strike them down.
Frequently vs. the 1st, now against the 2nd, 4th, and 5th. Of course, the
courts never really seem to rule for the 9th or 10th.

~~~
mtgx
I hope you're not suggesting they are doing this for the people. Because the
people weren't even aware they introduced this provision in the NDAA 2012, so
it's not like it would've scored them any brownie points with the "kill the
muslims" crowd. They tried to do it in secret, but civil libertarians found
out about it, and then some backlash started.

Now the House passed NDAA 2013 with the same provision as in 2012, and the
Senate adopted an amendment that banned that "indefinite detention without
trial" provision. But the negotiators for the two bills eliminated that at the
last moment. So indefinite detention without trial is back. So now it's up to
Obama to reject it, but I hope there are no illusions, like last year, that he
will actually reject it. He won't.

~~~
jivatmanx
Sounds like they're spamming knowingly unconstitutional provisions that have
already been struck down, in an attempt to overwhelm the supreme court's
finite capacity to enforce them.

~~~
enraged_camel
Not sure if it's intentional, but yes, the effect seems to be a form of denial
of service.

------
Aloisius
For people who haven't read the 5th amendment in a while:

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 offense 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.

~~~
rprasad
This would apply to Guantanamo but not to the drone strikes.

The difference is that we are alleging crimes against the Guantannamo
detainees, but not against drone targets. The drone targets are regarded as
military targets, so the international conventions on warfare and the
treatment of POWs applies.

~~~
rayiner
The Constitutional fuss about Guantanamo was because: 1) one of the first
detainees that filed suit was actually an American; 2) it was arguably U.S.
soil. The Constitutional issues with Guantanamo were resolved: the Court said
that Americans clearly had habeas rights and that by virtue of being U.S.
soil, non-Americans in Guantanamo also had certain rights. As a result, all
the U.S. citizens were quickly transferred to the civilian court system, and
the courts started hearing habeas petitions from other detainees.

The drone strikes are not on U.S. soil, and only in one case do they involve a
U.S. citizen (Al Awlaki). The Constitution is therefore inapplicable. Now, the
strikes may be a violation of international conventions on war, but they're
not a violation of the Constitution.

~~~
danenania
In a constitutional sense, how could drone victims possibly be military
targets when the US has not declared war? You're trying to play by the rules
that suit you and ignore the ones that don't.

~~~
rayiner
It doesn't matter whether they're military targets or not. What matters is
that they're not Americans and not on American soil and thus have no rights
under the U.S. Constitution.

~~~
danenania
That's absurd, since the constitution has provisions that plainly describe
what the US government is and isn't allowed to do with regard to foreign
nations. For example, the US constitution clearly states that the US
government is forbidden to carry out prolonged military operations in other
nations without a congressionally approved declaration of war. This means that
under the US constitution, any person in the world at least has the right not
to be bombed at the whim of the US executive branch with absolutely no review.

~~~
rayiner
First, the Constitution doesn't really say that, at least not with the gloss
you're giving it. Second, you're confused about who holds the right and what
the right protects. The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does
not mean you have the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right
protects the separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of
foreigners. It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not
foreigners.

~~~
danenania
"The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does not mean you have
the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right protects the
separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of foreigners.
It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not foreigners."

Now you're just playing semantic games. Who owns the 'right' in this case--
non-US citizens to not be bombed or congress to prevent their bombing--is
completely subjective. The fact is that prolonged military operations without
congressional approval are constitutionally forbidden. So whether the right is
explicit or de facto, it does it exist. You seem to want to interpret every
aspect of the constitution with rabid ethnocentrism, but most of the actual
authors of the document had a much broader perspective on humanity.

------
short_circut
I don't want to sound like a negative nancy, but anyone who as been paying
attention since the early 2000's (probably before but that was when I started
paying attention) is well aware of this. Historically this shouldn't be
surprising aswell as all great "empires" have begun their decline in similar
ways. I can't say for sure that it will keep moving in that direction but it
wouldn't surprise me. Some United Stations (americans for all those of you who
forget the rest of the Americas) will eventually rebel against this. Then who
knows whatwould happen. BUt then again they might not. Maybe Huxley was right!

~~~
betterunix
Early 2000s? We have been chipping away at the bill of rights for decades.
Things may seem extreme in this decade, but CALEA was passed in the early 90s,
paramilitary police forces became common in the 1980s (with budgets that need
not be approved by Congress every two years; in fact, some of these forces pay
themselves with the proceeds from arrests, via a law passed by Congress), and
the executive branch gained the power to declare drugs to be illegal without
democratic process in the 1970s. In the early 1960s, the Kennedy
administration was sending soldiers to Vietnam without a declaration of war by
Congress.

What happened in the early 2000s would not have been possible with the decades
of build-up. Without a standing army, without so much executive power, without
such a vast and powerful law enforcement system, and without the already-
established systems of domestic and global surveillance, it would have been
much harder to see the provisions of the PATRIOT act or NDAA actually go
through.

One of the few limits on government power that has any meaning in this day and
age is the prohibition on granting titles of nobility. I suppose that is a
good thing.

~~~
_delirium
> We have been chipping away at the bill of rights for decades.

I see it as a little more mixed. Some things have gotten stronger, other
weaker. The first amendment has mostly gotten stronger: 100 years ago, it was
interpreted extremely weakly, to the extent that wide ranges of novels were
illegal for containing sex scenes, pacifists were jailed under the Sedition
Act for merely speaking out against WW1, you could still be prosecuted for
_blasphemy_ in some states, etc. And of course, the bill of rights was
interpreted even more weakly if you happened to be black. So I'd have trouble
saying things were particularly good for freedom in earlier eras of the United
States.

------
mchusma
I care about this issue a lot, but I don't see why this should be on Hacker
News. I like HN because it provides a very different set of news items than
other sites, with particular focuses on startups, technology, and science. I
get the argument that "this affects everyone, including startups", but if too
much of this hits the homepage than we will loose access to the stories that
set HN apart.

~~~
achille
I agree, and the solution is simple: upvote all other stories that fit your
desired HN content and leave this story unvoted.

There was a paper a while back that explained how with the current algorithms,
upvoting neighboring stories has largely the same effect as downvoting.

------
alan_cx
Granted Im not an American, and I dont know the details, but as I read this,
Americans are some how different to non-Americans. Is that correct?

It reads like Americans get special protection that non Americans cant get in
the hands of US law? Seems some what odd to me that all this is about
Americans being held indefinitely with out trial, but for foreigners, do what
you like. Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law? Seems to me that this
stealthy legislation simply makes all human beings equal in US law, or at
least closes the gap. How is that wrong? It just means Americans will also
suffer at the hands of the US government, like non Americans do. Fair enough,
no? I note there is no concern to afford non-Americans the same protections
Americans get.

Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned
about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used
against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc.

Like I say, Im not an American and I really don't know the subtleties, but it
all seems a bit skewed to me.

~~~
leephillips
I realize you may be exaggerating for effect, but in case you've actually been
misled by sensationalist media into believing this, let me inform you that
there is no significant constituency in the US for "keeping hold of hard core
military weapons in their homes".

~~~
scott_s
If by "hard core military weapons" you mean assault rifles, yes, there is. I
know some of them.

~~~
gyardley
Civilians haven't been able to register fully-automatic weapons in America
since 1986. I suppose they could buy a grandfathered-in weapon that was on the
registry before then, but if that's the case, you have some seriously wealthy
friends.

Perhaps you're thinking of the semi-automatic versions available to civilians,
but once you turn an 'assault rifle' into a semi-automatic it's no more lethal
than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and the label is largely cosmetic.

The AR-15 that lunatic recently used certainly looks scary, but since the
rounds it takes are significantly less powerful than those used by your
typical boring old hunting rifle, what's the point of the distinction?

~~~
davrosthedalek
I guess the possible magazine sizes play a role here. I can't imagine a
hunting rifle with a 100 round mag. And aren't most of them bolt action, that
is, not even semi-automatic?

~~~
cobrausn
Correct, bolt-action weapons typically do not have magazines. That does not
prevent them from being used on rampages.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman>

The lunatic who attacked the school was not trained, but was also attacking
cornered, defenseless children at short range. Practically any firearm would
have been used in this attack to equivalent effect.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that might have stopped this (once it
started) would have been a police officer at the school or an armed teacher
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting>). We might have
better been able to prevent the shooting from taking place at all with better
mental health care. They weren't even his guns, so gun control that inspects
the purchaser would not have worked.

~~~
angersock
Nitpick: detachable magazines.

Then again, something like a lever-action .22 or even a Mauser would do in a
pinch for something like this.

------
cpursley
Considering we're now on track to lose the 2nd Amendment in the USA, the 1th
and 4th are considered optional, they might as well just shred the entire
document. What's the point of pretending any more?

~~~
king_jester
The 2nd amendment is not being discarded even with gun control legislation, so
this is hyperbole. A right to gun ownership doesn't mean that there cannot be
sensible regulation of guns.

~~~
exabrial
We already have an assault weapons ban: Civilians cannot own ridiculous
calibers of weapons/cannons/explosives, nor can they own automatic weapons
(without extensive licensure), and no _new_ automatic weapons can be
manufactured and sold to civilians. As a result of these regulations, one or
two crimes have been committed with 'real' assault weapons in the last 50
years. Further regulation at this point is unneeded and pointless.

What IS needed is stricter background checks, a background check on private
sales (this is called 'transferring through an FFL'), and we need the experts
to come up with a strategy to help keep ALL weapons (not just guns) out of the
hands of the mentally ill.

What's being proposed is a general reduction in weapons that 'look like'
military assault weapons, which is pointless and will ultimately accomplish
nothing (as it has in the past).

~~~
king_jester
>...and we need the experts to come up with a strategy to help keep ALL
weapons (not just guns) out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Stricter background checks and checks for private sales is a great start, but
I'm skeptical of trying to control gun access for the mentally ill. Most
people with mental disability or who are not neurotypical are not violent or
have violent tendencies, so where is the line drawn? It should also be noted
that mass shooting events have been perpetrated by people who didn't have
outwardly violent personalities, so would something like this really even
help? We may be better off tackling health care access and social problems
rather than increasing stigma about mental disability and illness.

------
patmcguire
I wish there were an organization as effective at defending the other 9
amendments in the bill of rights as the NRA is at defending the 2nd.

~~~
liber8
The reason the NRA has been so effective is because they understand the old
truism "give them an inch and they'll take a mile." When anybody brings up
otherwise reasonable limits (no heavy weaponry, no automatic assault weapons
for civilians) the NRA immediately responds with by shouting "fuck you"
through a bullhorn on the Capitol steps. They commit to spending serious money
opposing even these "reasonable" limits, and they don't mind being despised by
half the country for doing so. By refusing to cede on even the seemingly
obvious issues, they make it politically impossible for opponents to slowly
take away the rights they actually care about.

The problem is that very few organizations are willing to take this hard line
the NRA has adopted for 75 years now. Look at the smoking industry as an
example: first you couldn't smoke on planes. (Alright, that seems reasonable,
we don't want fires on airplanes.) Then it was hospitals. (Ok, also
reasonable, there's sick people there.) Then it was workplaces. (Well, you
should have a right to work without someone blowing smoke in your face.) Then
it was restaurants. (Ehh..) Then it was bars. (Wait...) Then it was the
outside areas of restaurants and bars. (Huh?) Then it was beaches and other
outdoor gathering areas. (Well, hold on....) Now entire cities have banned
outdoor smoking. Literally the only place you can smoke is in your home
(assuming you don't employ anybody). This is exactly how rights are
systematically chipped away.

Even the organizations that are willing to take stands and be despised often
get sidetracked. Look at the ACLU. In the last 20 years, they’ve more often
represented high-profile criminals in low-value cases (constitutionally
speaking) than taken on serious civil liberty issues like the PATRIOT act,
drone strikes, state-ordered killings of US Citizens, etc., etc.. This problem
only gets worse when “their guy” is in office.

People often deride “insane” organizations like the NRA, but unfortunately,
most of the time “insane” is what’s necessary to combat the usurpation of
rights that appears “prudent” at any given moment in time.

~~~
mindcrime
_The reason the NRA has been so effective is because they understand the old
truism "give them an inch and they'll take a mile."_

It's funny how much perspective changes things. Many gun owners have left the
NRA over the past few years, in favor of Gun Owners of America or other
organizations, exactly because the NRA is seen as overly willing to compromise
on gun rights. I personally am a card carrying member of the GOA, Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Second Amendment Foundation, but
_not_ the NRA for this very reason.

That said, they probably are more "hard line" than lobbying orgs for other
groups, and I won't argue against the essence of your point.

------
exabrial
They're also abandoning the 2nd Amendment... Which is perhaps the most
important one, since it gives you the right to defend your other amendments.

------
DamnYuppie
I stoutly maintain that we need to strongly enforce term limits on all
politicians and have tighter regulation and control as to how they are funded.
If you tackle these two problems you will get better government, and less
special interest which are the two things crippling us at the moment.

------
aneth4
The amendment should have been dropped. More importantly than what it
disallowed, it allows Congress to authorize indefinite detention - "unless an
Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention." A bill that authorizes
Congress to do something unconstitutional is both unconstitutional and sets a
very bad precedent. Congress quite clearly can not authorize such detention.

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar
authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a
citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the
United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."

------
tsewlliw
Wow, this is truly absurd. Just the other day an article at theatlantic.com
was posted here (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4935679>) and it was
advocating exactly this kind of constitutional circumvention behavior.

I think this is the business model devaluing the product. "the Atlantic" both
in name and typography wants to evoke a newspaper, but the internet broke the
model that allowed newspapers to do real journalism.

------
hsitz
Speaking as a lawyer, I would say that upwards of 99% of the comments in this
thread are full of crap; people confidently throwing around opinions or even
supposed-knowledge without any real knowledge of constitutional law. The
disheartening thing is, I know HN participants tend to be more intelligent
than the average person. It makes me marvel at how our nation functions at
all.

~~~
lhnn
Care to type up a paragraph of the most egregious misunderstandings?

BTW broadly speaking, I agree. I see smart people saying really frightening
things, then think about all the not-smart people.

~~~
hsitz
Yes, and I used 'smart' but what I actually meant is 'well-informed'. Doesn't
even matter if they're smart, but a well-informed person should have a basic
grasp of how constitutional law works.

Some basic problems in this thread: 1\. The U.S. Constitution does not exist
in a vacuum. You can't just read it and make a pronouncement on what it means.
It has been applied and interpreted by the courts for over two hundred years,
and case law, especially Supreme Court cases, are necessary parts of
understanding the Constitution. I'd have to look again, but I don't think
there's a single comment in this thread where case law is used to provide
authority/support for someone's assertions. In other words, people are just
spouting off with irrelevant crap. (All of this is true regardless of what
Scalia or anyone else says about "plain meaning"; their plain meaning is often
not plain to others (need to look at cases), and/or they pick and choose what
they think is plain and what's not).

2\. It may seem counterintuitive, but there is no such thing as an "absolute"
right. At least not in any human legal system. Rights sometimes conflict with
other rights (in which case at least one needs to be limited), rights are (and
always have been) limited when they conflict with what courts determine to be
a "compelling" government interest (need to read case law and reason by legal
analogy to understand if any particular situation may rise to level of
"compelling" interest), and they can be limited in less restrictive ways when
the government's interest does not rise to the level of being "compelling". In
other cases we may speak of a right as being absolute, e.g., right against
"cruel and unusual punishment", but it should be obvious to anyone in U.S.
over last ten years that that right depends on how courts interpret "cruel and
unusual", i.e, it's flexible.

Those, I think, are two main things. But, really, without my even saying those
it should be clear to anyone reading this thread that it's conducted at the
level of two (earnest but uninformed and perhaps inebriated) college freshman
debating late at night in their dorm room.

3\. Another smaller thing. In some cases people in this thread have tried to
interpet the language of the Constitution. Many of these attempts at
interpretation are laughably bad, don't involve careful reading. If people
coded with such little attention to detail programs would be crashing right
and left. (Of course, the text of the Constitution is not program code, like
any laws laid out in human language they're subject to interpretation, often
misinterpretation.)

------
pbateman
Well of course. Defending due process is a hard sell politically, beating up
on an unpopular boogeyman to "keep america safe" isn't.

------
imran
There is increase in poverty for the poor AND increase in wealth for the rich.
Now the rich people can get away from any suspicion but the poor can't. New
laws like NDAA makes it worse for the common american people. Only american
people themselves can solve this by atleast getting aware and fighting for
their rights!

------
salimmadjd
Can some help me understand why this organization has been lobbying for NDAA
in the last few years?
[http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2012/03/08/aipac-
stil...](http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2012/03/08/aipac-still-
commands-attention-among-movers-and-shakers/)

How are they benefiting from this?

------
dkhenry
When we as a nation are willfully abandoning the 1st why should we care that
congress is abandoning the 5th ?

~~~
crusso
Actually, the Freedom of the Press part of the first is the only thing that
has been sacrosanct in the Bill of Rights.

Really, we've abandoned the 9th and 10th almost completely. The 4th has been
under assault for ages. The 2nd is being paired back even more with the New
Town tragedy.

One day, when most of the amendments have no real weight in our society, then
the Freedom of the Press will be extinguished as well.

Americans have let the Federal Government divide us and work themselves into
the cracks between us. Lately, the divide has been between the "rich" and the
"poor"... voters really lapped that one up.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

~~~
dkhenry
Its not just the press. We have systematically abandoned almost every clause
of the first amendment.

------
grego
Prisoners in the US serving lifetime without parole: 41000, prisoners in the
UK serving lifetime without parole: 41

When imprisoning people so easily is the new normal, it is no wonder the
public is not so alert about new laws.

~~~
arjn
Did you take into account the population difference between the two countries
?

~~~
GFischer
Population of the United Kingdom: 61 million Population of the United States:
315 million

He's saying there's a thousand times as many lifetime inmates, but only 5
times the population. It's still a huge number.

------
davidw
Lots of glib one-liners demonstrate exactly why articles like this are not
germane to this site and should be flagged and removed. HN is not for
politics.

------
berntb
It seems democracies with terrorism problems tend to throw out the law book
and human rights. Examples are afaik US, Germany, Italy, Israel, GB, Spain,
etc.

Doing everything possible (and illegal) to stop terrorism is a logical result
of two facts:

1\. Politicians want to be reelected, so they want to keep the voters
relatively happy.

2\. The whole point of terrorism is to scare civilians in democracies -- that
makes them distinctly unhappy.

(Disclaimer: I have no political science background, this is my own conclusion
from everything I've read on the subject. If this cynical view is wrong, I'd
love to see references.)

~~~
kh_hk
Some people say one of the differences between some modern democracies and a
dictatorship is that on the latter, you know where your limits of freedom are.

You are not acting on behalf of the government? Guess what: terrorism.

I would also throw the "media" word on your country list. For having a
successful terrorist threat, you need control over media and free speech, and
laws that allow that control.

~~~
berntb
I think I miss your point (or you misunderstood)?

My theory re democracies is that you get these harsh reactions from
politicians' overarching need to keep the voters happy. (That doesn't apply to
those juntas which can to a large degree ignore the populations' opinions, of
course.)

I didn't talk about governments need/interest to e.g. increase control of the
population's lives. (I don't know if there really is a large interest for that
in the countries of the western world; sounds like a conspiracy theory.)

(Sorry, for a late answer.)

~~~
kh_hk

      >> I think I miss your point (or you misunderstood)?
      >> My theory re democracies is that you get these harsh reactions from 
      >> politicians' overarching need to keep the voters happy. (That doesn't 
      >> apply to those juntas which can to a large degree ignore the populations' 
      >> opinions, of course.)
    

I understood from your pragmatic comment (correct me if I am wrong) that an
influx of fear on countries sensible about terrorist threats could relate to
harsh reforms from politicians that want to keep being reelected seeking a
reduce on that fear. Simple: reduce fear at all costs -> be elected again.

You listed US, Germany, Italy, Israel, GB, Spain as examples.

    
    
      >> I didn't talk about governments need/interest to e.g. increase control of 
      >> the population's lives. (I don't know if there really is a large interest 
      >> for that in the countries of the western world; sounds like a conspiracy 
      >> theory.)
    

Conspiracy theories often refer to foreign terrorist threats. The
miscommunication between "enemy" countries often lead to the possibility of
false information from both fronts, that lead to red herrings and theories.

I know politics is not a popular topic on HN (and I like that), so I tried and
will try to keep it technical.

Taking it from your premise, if you can (and in some countries you could)
control the media to perceive change (which leads to not being elected) as a
terrorist threat, you could exceed in great lengths what's written on your
constitution and law books, as human rights often do not apply to terrorists.
If that's so, the difference (and permit me an hyperbole here) between a
democracy and a dictatorship stands on the fence, and secondly, you achieve
the main objective of being reelected.

I can't talk for most of these countries. But as an spaniard I know a bit
about Spain, and the last "developments" on our civil and penal code.

~~~
berntb
I still don't really get your point. :-)

Anyway, it is probably a good thing if conspiracy theories abound when the
local government overstep boundaries -- even if there are no conspiracies, it
keeps the politicians' behaviour in control. :-)

------
thoughtcriminal
Get your digs in now people, raise your voices, because once this thing
passes, you might... disappear.

