
A Secretly Detained American Has Asked for a Lawyer – But Gov Won’t Give Him One - gehwartzen
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/trump-administration-just-admitted-secretly-detained-american-has
======
ak39
[https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631...](https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7631-a-republic-
if-you-can-keep-it)

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict
secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall
when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind
closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of
Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a
republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A
republic, if you can keep it."

~~~
cryoshon
we couldn't keep it because we thought we could just leave it in a corner and
do nothing with it

turns out democracy is hard work

~~~
geggam
Democracy != Republic

They aren't even close to the same

Republic : Rule of Law

Democracy : Rule ( tyranny) of majority

~~~
archgoon
If we're going to argue definitions, might as well see what more conventional
definitions from the dictionary look like (from Google's Dictionary)

    
    
      re·pub·lic
      /rəˈpəblik/
    
      a state in which supreme power is held by the people
      and their elected representatives, and which has an
      elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
    
      de·moc·ra·cy
      /dəˈmäkrəsē/
      a system of government by the whole population or all
      the eligible members of a state, typically through
      elected representatives.
    

Now, the next thing we should probably figure out is in what sense did
Franklin mean it? Did he believe that the word 'Republic' conveyed merely that
the country would be governed by Rule of Law? That seems extremely unlikely.

~~~
geggam
You would do well to do more research than a simple google dictionary lookup.

But you likely wont put the work or the effort into understanding the
difference nor would you understand the inherent dangers of democracy

I believe this grand experiment of a constitutionally bound republic has ran
its course and what follows will be more misery for the poor.

Property rights, free markets, individual rights.... these are the eroded
cornerstones folks are crapping on ... while reaping the benefits of them

------
StudentStuff
This is a crime that violates the 5th and 6th amendments, and we should be
arresting and prosecuting those who gave the order to violate this man's
constitutional rights.

Are our rights worth less than the paper they are written on?

~~~
jhkdwbkjlf
Most ppl didn't care/do anything when the previous Nobel Prize winning guy
droned an American and his son (and other crimes). Why should ppl care now
about this if the guys doing it are quite honest in their contempt for the
rule of law? Say what you will about DJT, but he's quite honest (mostly 'cause
he can't control the diarrhea from his mouth).

If one is unwilling to raise one's voice for political expediency reasons when
the "good guys" are doing "bad" things then all this hoopla about this admin
pulling back const. protections is a bit of a laugh, aint it?

~~~
Angostura
Except of course that people that the ACLU and others absolutely did raise
their voices about the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki. Indeed there was quite a
lot of legal back and forth about its legality.

Personally, I see pragmatic difference. It is easily within the within the
U.S' capabilities to give this person a lawyer. It's not clear how the U.S
would have bought Anwar al-Awlaki to justice for the crimes that he was proud
of committing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

~~~
revelation
Yes, a "lot of legal back and forth" by Government lawyers writing secretive
memos that are nothing but a sham. Throw them in the same cell.

They also of course killed his U.S. citizen son ( _" I would suggest that you
should have a far more responsible father"_) and 8 year old daughter (not a
U.S. citizen, so clearly worthless).

~~~
Angostura
It must be comforting to live in a world that is so black and white. That
legal back and forth isn’t worthless. It’s what systems based on the rule of
law do when faced with knotty problems. You’ve decided that they are a sham
and that the lawyers should be thrown in jail without due process.

Find me anyone other than the people in your head who believe the daughter was
worthless.

~~~
revelation
There is no legal back and forth! There was no legal process! You seem to have
a hard time understanding this.

Writing secretive memos on how to extra-judicially kill U.S. citizens is
little different from Freisler giving his expert opinion to the Wannsee
conference.

~~~
wjn0
I've always thought Anwar al-Awlaki was a somewhat odd example.

Suppose an American man is found guilty of war crimes in, say, France, and is
ordered captured dead or alive. While conducting military exercises in France,
the US, an ally of France, gets the opportunity to capture him, dead. They do
so. Are you outraged?

Replace France with Yemen and you pretty much have the situation with this
individual.

I should say, I agree with you on the point that drone strikes in general are
not good policy. I'm more concerned about civilian casualties than the actual
targets, though. I've yet to come across a case to change my mind.

~~~
ColanR
> found guilty

I think the point is, "found guilty" _by whom_?

~~~
wjn0
The Yemeni court system?

------
jacquesm
Why does it even matter te person is American, _anybody_ in detention should
have the right to some kind of legal assistance.

~~~
sshine
Because the purpose of a government is to keep its citizens safe, not act as
world police.

~~~
tgb
Do you _really_ believe that giving lawyers to people you have already
detained is acting as "world police"?

------
thisacctforreal
Great on the ACLU for making progress :)

------
dennis_jeeves
Incredible, the average HNer here is naive enough to thinks he has 'rights'.
Rights are something that governments 'grant' when it is _convenient_ so that
citizens do not rebel and can be exploited appropriately. You generally have
no protection form the state if they decide to make your life miserable.

~~~
jstanley
Rights aren't granted to you by any government, they're universal, even if you
happen to be living under a regime which violates them.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Hate to break it to you, but this very thing happening is proof of the
grandparent.

Unless you have lots of guns and are willing to go to war with $government ,
you're going to have a very bad time. And even if you armed to the teeth, you
still going to have a very bad time, but instead you're shot at.

~~~
ColanR
That's why people use the phrase 'defending their rights'.

------
module0000
Want to join the ranks of political prisoners? It's really easy, just get
worked up and be outspoken about it publicly. You have everything to lose, and
nothing to gain. If you must meet about it, do so in secret, not here _in
front of everyone_.

------
YouAreGreat
Enemy combatant "held without charges" sounds a lot like any vanilla prisoner
of war.

So they took in some POWs, one says "no, wait, I'm really one of you, just
kidding about the shooting and stuff" and the military needs some time to
figure out whether normal rules of war apply in this case. Hard to get too
worked up over this, if you ask me.

~~~
krapp
Unless the US has declared war on itself, the capture of an American POW _by
the US_ seems contradictory in principle, and should make any American at
least a bit uncomfortable.

If it's difficult to consider whether or not the rules of war apply in this
case, then maybe that's because the war being waged is unjust in its scope or
fraudulent in its definition.

~~~
IncRnd
The reason there are detainees and enemy combatants in addition to POWs is
that a POW is someone who was fighting under the banner of another state. If
the person isn't wearing a uniform or if they fight for a group that isn't
recognized as a state, they are not generally a POW. "Rules of war" apply to
POWs in this system.

~~~
maxerickson
Boy that sure would be messy if we ever ended up waging war on a series of
nebulous non state actors.

~~~
IncRnd
Exactly the point!

------
ringaroundthetx
American citizen Enemy combatant and Trump didn’t just drone him?

Wow his guy respects more rights than Obama

Let’s see if he lasts long enough to get a lawyer! Anyone got a prediction
market we can bet with?

------
MechEStudent
I don't trust the ACLU. Black lives matter is about the dragon-king of poverty
and crime, not police. They don't get that, and so no solution they offer is
capable of engaging the root cause. They don't understand because they are
unwilling to ask.

