Palmer Raids

One sees this mentioned now and again in the blogosphere, but in these dark days of FISA-ignoring surveillance and so forth, one can always console oneself with the thought that things aren't as bad as they were during the Palmer Raids of the waning days of Woodrow Wilson's administration. Robert Farley's review of Kenneth Ackerman's Young J. Edgar: Hoover, the Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties, contains a good description of what went down. It should be appreciated, moreover, that these elements of the late Wilson administration have considerable continuity with the policies Wilson himself pursued when he was healthier and the country was coping with world war and the great influenza.

On the other hand, even at what was the peak (especially in terms of the breadth of violations) of civil unlibertarinism in America, I don't think you had top government officials arguing that what the country needed was the systematic application of torture.

Comments

"On the other hand, even at what was the peak (especially in terms of the breadth of violations) of civil unlibertarinism in America, I don't think you had top government officials arguing that what the country needed was the systematic application of torture."

True. But on the other hand, the Wilson administration was in the business of jailing Presidential candidates for speech crimes, which in many important ways is far worse behavior than torturing non-citizens.

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 8:27 AM

I'm pushing 60 and I'd never heard of the Palmer Raids. Thanks for the link.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 29, 2007 8:42 AM

Looking back at events such as the Palmer Raids (and the WW1 postal shutdown of antiwar publications) also remind us that our civil liberties do not simply rest with us passively from the Constitution's words, but are possessed by us citizens when we demand them.

If we stop demanding our rights, if we stop exercising them, then they will go away again, and no amount of Constitutional phrasing will keep them in our hands until we once again re-learn this lesson.

Posted by El Cid | August 29, 2007 9:20 AM

Petey, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they are torturing citizens as well.

Posted by LarryM | August 29, 2007 9:33 AM

I'm not justifying the Palmer Raids, but if you read the various links you will find that there was a domestic threat that was truly a danger to society. The Galleanists (of whom were Sacco and Vanzetti) were planting bombs everywhere. They almost killed Franklin Roosevelt as he walked with his wife in D.C.
Just a word of balance, that's all.

Posted by anon | August 29, 2007 9:38 AM

The raids happened in an era of tens of thousands of Europeans being killed by the same sort extreme radicals we inadvertently let in to America, less than 20 years after President McKinley was killed by an early one. With Wall Street and government officials targeted with bombs. With violence organized into unions and Front groups organized by the communists and anarchists planned to be used in future revolution.

The Palmer Raids may have excised some healthy tissue, but they cut out and removed a cancer.

The nice thing of course is that after they were deported, so many flocked to the epicenter of violent revolution, the Soviet Paradise. In which those deportees were seen as of uncertain loyalty and liquidated, used as cannon fodder agaist White Forces, or put to work in Yagoda's slave labor projects by Russian and Jewish Bolsheviks runnng the show in the late teens, early 20s. Out of the American frying pan the violent, seditious, disloyal anarcho-syndicalists, agitators of mass movement violence, bombers, and commies were in - right into the Soviet fire...

As for torture, back then all modern democratic states practiced "The 3rd Degree" on select enemies of the state or violent felons.

but in these dark days of FISA-ignoring surveillance and so forth,

Every President, even Carter the Wuss, has stated that they will ignore FISA if it trammles on their Constitutional duties to monitor and thwart enemy foreign agents as Presidents are tasked under the Constitution. Each President has signed a statement that they will not violate the words and intent of the Constitution in situations where FISA would blind America and the Commander in Chief to our foreign enemies.
Every one.
Which is mild compared to what FDR did months before we joined in WWII - he ordered every piece of mail arriving in or leaving the USA for Europe or Asia opened and examined, all cable phone calls to Europe or Hawaii listened in on, w/o warrant.

Petey - True. But on the other hand, the Wilson administration was in the business of jailing Presidential candidates for speech crimes, which in many important ways is far worse behavior than torturing non-citizens.

Washington, Madison, Jackson, and Lincoln did the same in war. Lincoln the most significant...but the others jailed some 5th columnists in the press and political community.

FDR did to a more limited extent - Jap aliens that did not speak out for the Axis powers went to relocation camps - but 5,000 who did were went to Thule Lake prison camp and deported as undesireables at War's end. Same with Germans and Italians - most did not go to relocation camps like the Japs did - but those active in the Bund or Mussolini Fascist groups were interned with their "US citizen" German-American, Italian-American children. And FDR had very powerful people show up at newspapers and radio stations with signed arrest warrants they swore would be used if "security breaches" continued.

Eisenhower removed a few reporters that had tried ducking censorship to a remote Scottish military camp where nothing happened for months at a time. And later swore to reporters that if D-Day details or any other battle plan escaped to the Brit or American public ALL suspected reporters would be on the fist wave sent into combat..No NYTimes style leaks, amazingly enough. No heart-rending stories of the tremendous collateral damage US bombing and armor caused going through France, Belgium, the Philippines, Saipan - caused, amazingly enough!

Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 9:50 AM

The raids happened in an era of tens of thousands of Europeans being killed by the same sort extreme radicals we inadvertently let in to America

"Tens of thousands" of Europeans being killed in terrorist incidents? You're not making sense.

Every President, even Carter the Wuss, has stated that they will ignore FISA if it trammles on their Constitutional duties

A wingnut lie, first put about by Drudge a couple of years ago:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/12/intellectual_in_1.html

Washington, Madison, Jackson, and Lincoln did the same in war

You're just making shit up. Washington, Madison and Jackson did no such thing, and Lincoln, faced with an actual rebellion, didn't do much, and was struck down by the courts when he did. Hell, Jackson didn't even have a war.

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 10:38 AM

Re "Hell, Jackson didn't even have a war."
--------
Andrew Jackson declared martial law in New Orleans when it was under threat of being destroyed by a huge invading British Army. Through strong , competent leadership He managed to use militias to destroy that Army -- although the British would probably have been victorious if not for the strength/speed of the Mississippi River current.

Jackson's victory was not a trival feat -- the professional Army invading New Orleans had destroyed Napoleon. Jackson lured them into a trap and slaughtered around 6000 of them with a lost of about 20? men.

IF the British had been victorious, they would have controlled the chokepoint between Mississippi River shipping and world shipping. Hence, they would have controlled the commerce of the Mississippi River states and probably would have encouraged the secession of those states from the Union -- as Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson were plotting. The states --their economies totally dependent upon the Mississippi --would have been strongly pressured to comply.

If that had happened, the continental US would have dissolved into a mass of warring states --as happened in Europe -- , the continual warfare would inevitably have thrown up strong militaristic leaders who would have become kings, and republican government would have been extinguished -- as it had been extinguished since Julius Caesar overthrew the Roman Republic.

Andrew Jackson maintained martial law in New Orleans for about two months after--fearing that the crisis was not past. A local judge objected at one point and was promptly throw into jail. After news of the peace treaty was received, Jackson dropped martial law and was immediately
tried by the judge. Jackson accepted his trial with good grace and the heavy fine imposed by the judge-- urging his followers to obey the rule of law. I believe Congress later voted to reimburse Jackson for the fine.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 11:06 AM

Being from the Scots-Irish-Welsh background of the Appalachians, I can appreciate the personal
motivations that drove him to fight. Jackson was an impoverished young boy during the American Revolution-- living in a South occupied by the British Army. His father dead, Jackson only had his mother and had to work. At one point, he was ordered by a British Officer to clean/shine the officer's boots. Upon his refusal, the officer angrily struck the young boy with his sword.

Jackson must have remembered that blow with cold hatred as he plotted the destruction of Wellington's Army on that foggy morning of January 1815.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 11:20 AM

What's it take to ban Chris Ford? First he claims we lost Vietnam due to a "Left-Jewish" conspiracy, now the repeated use of "Jap" --- by the way, 2/3rds of the 120k ethnically Japanese internees were American citizens.

Posted by tequila | August 29, 2007 11:39 AM

I second the motion to ban Chris Ford.

How can you have a sensible discussion with someone who inhabits a parallel universe? Seriously, he contributes no more to these discussions than a paranoid schizophrenic from the local insane asylum.

Posted by Josh G. | August 29, 2007 11:59 AM

Don Williams:

Jackson at New Orleans was not an example of a president suppressing domestic dissent.

A military commander in a combat zone has some legal powers that are not possessed by domestic authorities even during wartime. At that, what Jackson did was illegal, as your story demonstrates.

Oh, and the British troops at New Orleans had not "destroyed" Napolean--hell, they'd never even faced Napoleon--although some had served under Wellington in Portugal and Spain. If you credited them for beating Massena, Marmont and Jourdan, that would be accurate.

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 12:45 PM

"it could be worse" is cold comfort.

Posted by mencken | August 29, 2007 1:48 PM

The Palmer Raids may have excised some healthy tissue, but they cut out and removed a cancer. - Chris Ford

For the longest time (even during the height of the Cold War), the most significant terrorist/armed threat to our country has been due to homegrown, right-wing terrorist groups that espouce views not to different than those of our very own, dear Chris Ford. Do remember the OK City bombing, etc.

These groups no doubt are a cancer on our society. I do doubt that Chris Ford, detestible as he is, is quite a cancer.

So Chris Ford -- how would you like it if, in the course of removing the cancer of domestic terrorism, you, as "some healthy tissue" (debatable, but let's give Chris Ford the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument) were removed? Hmmm .... ?

*

I love the language, too -- it's exactly the sort of language that you hear people quoting when they accuse Rousseau of being a proto-fascist. Usually people don't quote that sort of cancer/healthy-tissue/body of society language in support of any argument besides "people who use that sort of language are fascists".

*

FISA if it trammles on their Constitutional duties to monitor and thwart enemy foreign agents as Presidents are tasked under the Constitution.

I've heard this argument. But how exactly does FISA really inhibit the President's ability to monitor foreign enemy agents? The President can even monitor first and get a warrant later under FISA! And if the monitoring is such a shot in the dark that it can't get a warrant, post-facto, from a top-secret FISA court, how is it really monitoring of a foreign agent? You need to know someone is foreign enemy agent before it becomes your, as President, responsibility to monitor that person, eh?

Posted by DAS | August 29, 2007 1:50 PM

What's it take to ban Chris Ford? First he claims we lost Vietnam due to a "Left-Jewish" conspiracy, now the repeated use of "Jap" --- by the way, 2/3rds of the 120k ethnically Japanese internees were American citizens.
Posted by tequila

Well, because dumbshit, during WWII, the enemy were not called Nipponese and Germans, but Nazis and Japs. That is why you keep hearing about Germans being referred to as Nazis when discussing WWII actions, though PC might argue that not all Germans were Nazis and it would be impolite these days to call Germans Nazis as it is to call Nipponese "Japs".

As for Vietnam, it is incontrovertable that the Soviets and Vietnamese in their memoirs greatly credit the American Left media with the victory, and Jewish ownership of the majority of "leftist" media assets was recognized as true by the Soviets, the FBI, and so on.

I can't blame you and Josh G. for seeking to ban posters that are far smarter than you. At one time, Lefty bans and speech codes actually had some cultural and legal standing - along with "bans" on the criticism of any groups that demanded they be immune from criticism by virtue of self-proclaimed "victimhood". Even more PC Canada and EU are waking up to the fact that their hate-speech bans lobbied for and won by various victim groups, are greatly stifling democratic debate.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 1:54 PM

You're just making shit up. Washington, Madison and Jackson did no such thing, and Lincoln, faced with an actual rebellion, didn't do much, and was struck down by the courts when he did. Hell, Jackson didn't even have a war.

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 10:38 AM

*************************************************

I don't know about the others but you're quite wrong about Lincoln. He suspended habeas corpus and threw thousands of anti-war people into jail, including dissenting members of Congress. He had one Democratic congressman deported to the South. When the Supreme Court tried to enforce a writ of h.c. Lincoln ignored it.

Another good example is the "sainted" John Adams who got the Alien and Sedition Act passed to suppress political dissent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Twenty-five people, primarily prominent newspaper editors but also Congressman Matthew Lyon, were arrested. Of them, eleven were tried (one died while awaiting trial), and ten were convicted of sedition, often in trials before openly partisan Federalist judges. Federalists at all levels, however, were turned out of power, and, over the following years, Congress repeatedly apologized for, or voted recompense to victims of, the enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson, who won the 1800 election, pardoned all of those that were convicted for crimes under the Alien Enemies Act and the Sedition Act.

Posted by Campesino | August 29, 2007 1:56 PM

"It is said that [Benedict] Arnold asked an officer he had taken captive about what the Americans would do if they captured Arnold, and the captain is said to have replied "Cut off your right leg, bury it with full military honors, and then hang the rest of you on a gibbet."

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 2:32 PM

Lincoln. He suspended habeas corpus and threw thousands of anti-war people into jail, including dissenting members of Congress. He had one Democratic congressman deported to the South.

Gross exaggeration--not thousands, and no congressmen (one former congressman, running for governor at the time). LIncoln's actions were struck down by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Millikan, and Lincoln's successor complied with that ruling (Lincoln was dead by then).

Note that the constitution expressly alows habeas corpus to be suspended in the face of insurrection or invasion, although it's Congress and not the president, who has the power to suspend the writ. No insurrection or invasion during the Bush adminstration . . .

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 2:46 PM

Don Williams, nice bit about the Andy Jackson history. I would add two things:

1. Jackson did not only have problems with the courts, but also with French gentry in NOLA and a substantial number of Spaniard "leading citizens". The politicians were waving their newly bought "US citizens as free men and property owners" but still acting basically for their respective "great powers interests" when insisting, they, not Jackson had final word on his defenses, conscription of locals for milita and building bulwarks against the Brits and any deals to be made with the Brits regarding French and Spanish trade rights. Jackson not only shut down the courts and arrested a few - but when they kept it up, he marched right into town hall and explained that they all were to shut up under martial law or be hanged for treason. After the emergency passed, Jackson's forces were of mixed opinion on his accountability when civilian rule was re-established. He listened to the dise that said he was such a hero that whatever the twits decided wouldn't mean a thing. That faction was right. Jackson avoided a reputation as a tyrant, Congress cleaned up all the blemishes on his record...

2. Besides NOLA, Jackson also had major run-ins with lawyers dressed in robes over the "Trail of Tears" and the hardass approach he took to the bank swindlers in the Federalist camp. In both cases, he basically blew off judges and did his own thing. It was from that period that he uttered "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him (try) to enforce it.".

But a good job in a Jackson history refresher, Don!

*****************
DAS - the old Lefty line that the Islamic threat or Communist Democide should be considered no more of a threat than "Tim McVeigh" or the "5 killed by abortion protestors" may sound good in ferverent meetings of fellow Lefties. But it sounds stupidly deranged to rational Americans.

Nor is any war or insurgency ever won without collateral damage. Only Lefties believe in the possibility of "perfect war" with no civilian casualties, or an defeating an insurgency with only infallible lawyers involved -achieving "justice"...

As for "easy FISA warrants", Director McConnell stated that what is already known about NSA methods, thanks to post-9/11 "civil liberties lawyers", will kill more Americans in the future, in his judgment. And those activists will have to live with those deaths, when they come.
McConnell also stated that with millions of foreign communications looked at that use American equipment, it is impossible to know if the guy in the Waziri mountains is an American or not until you listen...And any "easy warrants" require the following for a single phone of a suspected terrorist using a few phones a month:

1. 200 hours of legal and NSA work preparing the single warrant on a single cell phone to be "tapped".
2. 4-5 days for review, signature chain. Then up to 3 working weeks for a decision. A timespan where only those suspected comms designated as "urgent threats" may be listened to.
3. People with linguistic skills and knowledge of the terrorist culture being monitored being pulled off monitoring duties for days, sometimes, to explain to a FISA judge why "The 3rd Day of the Feast" of Abu al-Sayaff" in the context of a "great day in London" has dangerous overtones, and sometimes judges quibbling over translations where word-parsing impacts FISA law written for specific words and phrases Americans would use.
4. A disastrous recent ruling by a single FISA judge that the law intended to protect Americans from "warrantless wiretapping" for their domestic political activities now applies to A Saudi speaking to a Yemeni in their own countries if part of the cell phone microwaves or optic web signal packet goes through US company-owned equipment located in the USA.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 2:47 PM

Gross exaggeration--not thousands, and no congressmen (one former congressman, running for governor at the time). LIncoln's actions were struck down by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Millikan, and Lincoln's successor complied with that ruling (Lincoln was dead by then).

Note that the constitution expressly alows habeas corpus to be suspended in the face of insurrection or invasion, although it's Congress and not the president, who has the power to suspend the writ. No insurrection or invasion during the Bush adminstration . . .

Posted by rea | August 29, 2007 2:46 PM

*************************************************
Uh, no.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.

Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.

Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Posted by Campesino | August 29, 2007 3:31 PM

Re Campesino "Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal. "
--------
An excellent ruling --ESPECIALLY in the case of American citizens. Only problem was that it was overturned by a cowardly Supreme Court during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. FDR was determined to hang some German Saboteurs --landed on US beaches by U-Boat, to do so by Military Tribunal, and fuck the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court -- still cowed by his bench packing threat --went along. Their reasoning was cobbled together after the fact --after the bodies were cold. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

At least one of the saboteurs was an AMERICAN citizen, as I recall. Which kinda raises an interesting question of how the Second Amendment is supposed to work. Indeed, what is it's purpose? I noticed that NRA head Wayne Lapierre --who ranted about the "jackbooted federal thugs" during Clinton's administration -- has been very quiet lately.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 3:55 PM

RE "Oh, and the British troops at New Orleans had not "destroyed" Napolean--hell, they'd never even faced Napoleon--although some had served under Wellington in Portugal and Spain "
---------
The British commander defeated and killed by Jackson was Edward Pakenham -- Wellington's brother in law who had fought with Wellington against French forces, including at Salamanca. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pakenham

My understanding is that his Army in New Orleans included many veterans of the Peninsula War against French forces.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 4:05 PM

Re Chris's Comment "Jackson did not only have problems with the courts, but also with French gentry in NOLA and a substantial number of Spaniard "leading citizens". "
---------
I don't see where it matters --given that the Commander of the Federal Army -- Jame Wilkinson -- was a Spanish spy.

Wilkinson was from the Main Line here in Philly and is one of my favorite Founding Fathers.

Charged with carrying report of the great Patriot victory at Saratoga to Washington, Wilkinson stopped alone the way to engage in some private busiess --speculation on the news-- and was chastised for his tardiness.

Part of the Conway Cabal to have George Washington relieved of command during the Revolutionary War.

Discharged from the Continental Army after his supply accounts as "Clothier General" failed to balance.

Strongly opposed adoption of the US Constitution.

Suspected of assassinating Mad Anthony Wayne in order to take over his post as head of the Federal Army.

Plotted with Aaron Burr to create a separate nation from the Mississippi River states -- then testified AGAINST Burr at Burr's treason trial once Wilkinson realized President Jefferson was onto him.

Paid spy for Spain while head of the US Army (not discovered until 50 years later when US Historians reviewed some archives in Mexico City.)
At the same time, was US Representative who accepted the Louisiana Purchase from Spain -- a sight which must have filled the Spanish with mirth.

Stated one time that "the world runs on self-interest --and anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool"

Ha ha ha We still have his portrait in the Museum of Art here in Philly.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilkinson

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 4:20 PM

Re: Edward Pakenham

Isn't Antonia Frasier somehow related to him?

Posted by DAS | August 29, 2007 4:44 PM

1) Ah yes, forgot historian Robert Leckie's description of James Wilkinson:

""a general who never won a battle or lost a court-martial."

2) Wilkinson started his military career under the tutelage of that great Patriot military leader Benedict Arnold.

Actually, Wilkinson and Arnold are more sympathetic once you realize just how dirty some Founders like Alexander Hamilton were.

And Honest George entered the Revolution only after the King took away that 30,000 acres of Ohio River bottomland he claimed from the French and Indian War.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 4:44 PM

Yes, the degree of hysteria in America during the later Wilson years is hard to fathom today, especially because it dissipated fairly rapidly under the much underrated Harding and Coolidge presidencies. Whether or not the word "normalcy" exists, those two Presidents really did help bring it back.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 29, 2007 4:48 PM

Hey, just out of curiosity, have there been any periods of U.S. history for the right wing whose very special threatiness didn't entirely justify an authoritarian crackdown?

Was it a long period?

Or is it only a few years every now & then, in between the new giant threats which are about to destroy us all?

If so, maybe it's just safer to get rid of all these lefties and liberals any way, and get rid of these naive notions of liberty, etc., because if you look at the right wing obsession with the Special Threat we always face, there's just no telling when another Special Threat will arise which will justify the removal of civil liberties and democratic authority.

Posted by El Cid | August 29, 2007 5:10 PM

Don - At least one of the saboteurs was an AMERICAN citizen, as I recall.

I look at it that American citizen rights, now sadly diluted to near irrelevance by Lefties and lawyers in robes insistance that anyone who invades our lands IS a de facto citizen in the eyes of the law with full Constitutional Rights - well, those Rights are plenty, but they come with just a few responsibilities.

Like not being a traitor working for a foreign power trying to kill US citizens.

So IMO, the fact that a Padilla or a German saboteur was AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!! with "precious rights" should make it even harder on them. I can respect a deadly enemy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while wanting him dead for war crimes - KSM is a foreigner trying to defeat the infidel enemy in combat.

I can't respect John Walker Lindh at all. He should have gotten a military trial and a treason conviction. And it was a perversion to hand Padilla over to civilian lawyers in robes who have stupidly inserted themselves now in military justice..

German and British pilots can drink together - enemies now friends 65 years after they flew in combat in WWII, and to the memories of fallen friends - but none will drink to the memory of a British pilot that flew with the Nazis and was slow-hanged by military tribunal after the war.

It is a misimpression that enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens somehow "get full civilian court rights" as a basic right, while a US citizen drafted who who volunteers into military service only gets "inferior to our magnificent ACLU lawyers and civilian courts" -court martials or tribunals...

Traitors working with the enemy don't get "extra" justice.

If anything, they get very short shrift, as is proper. Americans shot American citizens (tens of thousands of Americans went to Germany in the Depression) they found in German uniform on the spot, no POW treatment. The Americans in Japanese service did not surrender because they knew their fate.
The Soviets were far worse on their traitors, and a lot broader in definition of treason by arms..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 29, 2007 5:38 PM

Chris Ford, could you be more of a disgusting monster? I do not think you.

Posted by Jennifer | August 29, 2007 5:44 PM

Chris Ford:

"Jap aliens...."

What a racist degenerate you are.

Posted by Jennifer | August 29, 2007 5:46 PM

Chris Ford:

"...most did not go to relocation camps like the Japs did...."

Disgusting degenerate racist.

Posted by Jennifer | August 29, 2007 5:48 PM

Hey, just out of curiosity, have there been any periods of U.S. history for the right wing whose very special threatiness didn't entirely justify an authoritarian crackdown?

Was it a long period?

Or is it only a few years every now & then, in between the new giant threats which are about to destroy us all?

If so, maybe it's just safer to get rid of all these lefties and liberals any way, and get rid of these naive notions of liberty, etc., because if you look at the right wing obsession with the Special Threat we always face, there's just no telling when another Special Threat will arise which will justify the removal of civil liberties and democratic authority.

Posted by El Cid | August 29, 2007 5:10 PM

*************************************************

Um, Cid, Wilson was a Democrat.

Posted by Campesino | August 29, 2007 6:40 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "those Rights are plenty, but they come with just a few responsibilities.

Like not being a traitor working for a foreign power trying to kill US citizens...

...It is a misimpression that enemy combatants who happen to be US citizens somehow "get full civilian court rights" as a basic right, while a US citizen drafted who who volunteers into military service only gets "inferior to our magnificent ACLU lawyers and civilian courts" -court martials or tribunals...

Traitors working with the enemy don't get "extra" justice. "
--------------
Really?

So what about Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson? Would you like to go out in the rural South and suggest they should have been shot out of hand --or "slow-hanged"???

The problem with allowing the President to become Dictator with no constraints is what happens if a future one becomes a tyrant?? Do military units , National Guard, or state militia units who oppose his attempts to overthrow the Constitution suddenly become "traitors" who can be shot without trial?

If so, then what't the purpose of the NRA? Why did the Founding Fathers set up the Bill of Rights --including the Second Amendment? What
option do citizens have other than armed resistance if a tyrant trys to scape the Constitution during a crisis??

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 6:53 PM

Re Cid's comment "Hey, just out of curiosity, have there been any periods of U.S. history for the right wing whose very special threatiness didn't entirely justify an authoritarian crackdown?"
-------
As Campesino notes , Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat. As was FDR.

The FDR who established the Exparte Quirin precedent that has been the main legal argument used by Bush and AG Gonzales for most of their questionable actions.

Neither Wilson's actions nor FDR's were necessary.

And while Lincoln was the founding Republican, most liberals today certainly approve of his actions against the Confederacy.

Anyone who has read Southern newspapers circa 1860 knows that slavery was a vile system -- fully as bad as the Nazi racism. The South deserved what it got.

But it is unfortunate that --in the course of freeing AfroAmericans -- Lincoln enslaved all of us to a degree. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been turned into dead letters and the Interstate Commerce clause has been greatly abused. The federalist division of power becomes more of a joke every day. A nation of 300 Million micromanaged by 550 corrupt whores in Washington is NOT a democracy or even a Republic.

The Founders set up an intricate mechanism to preserve freedom over the centuries. But even a Rolex runs out of sync over time. I fear that the acts of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and especially Bush have disturbed a complex balance and will destroy this nation over the next 50 years.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 7:11 PM

In fairness to Bush, he had total responsibility for the safety of the country on his shoulders and a frenzied attempt to respond to an attack for which the Pentagon was not prepared. It's understandable that he was impatient of restraints.

The people who really FAILED, in my opinion, were the Republican Congresses of 2000-2006 plus some Democratic leaders. It is Congress's job to sit back from the current fray, look at the long-term implications, and set up mechanisms to ensure needed powers/constructs are not abused. While ensuring threats to the nation are dealt with. They didn't do that. In fact, their irresponsibility in the 1990s was why Sept 11 succeeded.

That was why it was infuriating to see them go on TV on Sept 11, stand in front of the American flag, and sing "God Bless America."
The tragedy of Sept 11 was that Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Center -- and missed the US Capitol.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 7:24 PM

Um, Cid, Wilson was a Democrat. Posted by Campesino | August 29, 2007 6:40 PM

That has to be the dumbest comment, quickly lauded by other idiots, that I have ever seen on here.

My god, the FRIGGING SUBSTANCE OF THE POST CRITICIZED THE PALMER RAIDS.

Then the right wing toad pops up and defends them.

WOODROW WILSON, UM, DEMOCRAT, UM, DID NOT JUST FRIGGIN' RE-ANIMATE HIMSELF AND DEFEND HIS PALMER RAIDS ON THIS BLOG YOU FRIGGIN' WILLFULLY OBTUSE MORON. THE RIGHT WING TOAD DID. NOT WOODROW WILSON, UM, DEMOCRAT, BUT, UM, RIGHT WING TOAD, UM, HERE, ON THIS FRIGGIN' BLOG.

Are you completely stupid? Did you spend, like, 15 minutes meditating in a dark room, with incense, so that you could really put yourself in the zone of stupid?

Does this count among your favorite all-star stupid moments, or do you have an entire reserve that you have listed on your wall?

Posted by El Cid | August 29, 2007 8:40 PM

Before Bin Laden's freakishly successful attack on America, people like Chris Ford were laughed at. Now, Chris and his fellow war demons make up the 25% of the US population eager to give unlimited power to the incompetent and mentally unbalanced Bush.

Murder, torture, plunder - all forbidden things are now possible in order to make us "safe." There is no safety in destroying America's national character. There is no security in turning our country into a tyrannical national security state.

Posted by HH | August 30, 2007 2:42 AM

Ahhhh... nice history debate. WTF does any of this have to do with today? I thought (hoped) that we, as a society, hell, as a species we have progressed and LEARNED a little from the past. I really don't subscribe to "he did it, so we should too".

Understanding history is not just "the facts"; it also about understanding the CONTEXT!

Didn't Galileo spend the last years of his life under arrest because his ideas threatened the de facto government of the age: the church? Does that mean that we are justified putting Hawkings in prison for defying the Pope by theorizing beyond the Big Bang?

FDR knew about Pearl Harbor 2 weeks before it happened. In the CONTEXT of the world AT THAT TIME , I personally think he made a defendable decision. If the current occupant did the same thing today, IN THIS CONTEXT, that is, the world TODAY; I would say let Gonzo fast track his execution.

Posted by JohnJ | August 30, 2007 2:48 AM

RE JohnJ comment "Ahhhh... nice history debate. WTF does any of this have to do with today? I thought (hoped) that we, as a society, hell, as a species we have progressed and LEARNED a little from the past"
---------
ha ha ha ha. I would argue that we have greatly REGRESSED.

Go attend a session of Congress then go to the National Zoo, watch the monkeys yell and throw feces at each other and tell me how much we have "progressed".

As Jared Diamond noted, we can't do controlled experiments on human societies so --like zoologists -- we have to observe them in the wild. History is our way of gaining data that illustrates the patterns that guide the rise and fall of nations.

What we see is that we are following the path of the Roman Republic upon which we were modeled. A decline from freedom into tyranny as a small elite use surplus military power to create a global empire--in which the profits flow to the few, the heavy costs are dumped off onto the rabble, and the army is used to suppress any rebellion the rabble might mount over this state of affairs.

The Roman Republic fell when her army was converted from one of citizen soldiers to one of long term professionals. What kind have we created in the past 20 years?

Circa 1789, our Founders had created a nation under the bleakest conditions imaginable: one third of the country supported them, one third supported the British King, and one third wanted to be left along. With a tremendous effort, they had thrown off an occupation by the army of the most powerful power on the planet. Their economy was in ruins, their money was worthless and a real smallpox pandemic had decimated the population. At any point, they could be invaded and torn apart by the great powers of Europe.

IN SPITE of all this, they feared the power of government and placed strict limits on its powers.
But at the time they were torn between the need to protect the country from foreign invasion vs the need to block the rise of a domestic tyrant.

As I noted above, the war of 1812 was the first test of whether the nation was strong enough to survive. If Andrew Jackson had lost, not only would the United States have been lost but also any hope of republican government on this earth.
And Andrew Jackson would have lost if spies had given the British notice of Jackson's deployments and his severe weaknesses. And there were spies -- as James Wilkinson illustrates.

Jackson would also have lost if his orders had been delayed in execution. Hence, martial law. But martial law that was lifted once the crisis was past.

A similar crisis --with similar stakes --arose with the Civil War. Lincoln was also under severe pressures -- and again, the Supreme Court tried to paper over the damage done by his wartime measures.

But Woodrow Wilson had no strong reason to imprison Eugene Debs --at the expense of the First Amendment --nor did FDR have reason to use a military tribunal against a US citizen.

Still less are George W Bush's measures justified today -- we are no longer in the desperate situation of the Founders. We are the most powerful nation on the planet. Our constraints on the Executive should be even stronger than those in 1789. Instead, they are much weaker and many of our Constitutional checks and balances are becoming the mere "parchment barriers" that the Founders feared.

Why? Well, because today our elites have much more at stake. Today, they have a lot of accumulated wealth --hence, a lot to lose. To protect that wealth, they will create a global police state that Hitler would have envied.
As the Roman Emperors did, they will put the fasces back into fascism.

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 9:18 AM

PS If you don't look at History, you don't realize just how extremely rare our form of government has been over the past 6000 years --
much less wonder why that is so and what it
portends for us.

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 10:11 AM

If Republicans trolling for paid sex in washrooms doesn't constitute a SPECIAL DANGER, what does?
Do my kids have to "hold it" until there's a Democratic Administration?

Posted by Mooser | August 30, 2007 10:16 AM

Please do not drag my family into your unfounded conclusions.

"I'm not justifying the Palmer Raids, but if you read the various links you will find that there was a domestic threat that was truly a danger to society. The Galleanists (of whom were Sacco and Vanzetti) were planting bombs everywhere. They almost killed Franklin Roosevelt as he walked with his wife in D.C.
Just a word of balance, that's all."

Posted by anon | August 29, 2007 9:38 AM

Posted by bob sacco | August 30, 2007 1:06 PM

OK Don, most of society has progressed. Obviously we have some amazingly articulate, but very warped, people who are still arguing for the advantages of the inquisition.

It's kind of like those who long for the Medieval ages, assuming they would be part of the ruling minority, not the starving powerless majority.

Posted by JohnJ | August 30, 2007 2:39 PM

OK Don, most of society has progressed. Obviously we have some amazingly articulate, but very warped, people who are still arguing for the advantages of the inquisition.

It's kind of like those who long for the Medieval ages, assuming they would be part of the ruling minority, not the starving powerless majority.

Posted by JohnJ | August 30, 2007 2:39 PM

I concur that the Bush Administration more and more resembles a surreal Monty Python scene from "The Holy Grail".

Posted by Don Williams | August 30, 2007 5:41 PM

Heh. Okay, so maybe these days aren't as bad as they were in Wilson's days..but goddamnit, we're pretty close. There are specialized prison camps for foreigners now, "Detention Centres" they're callin' 'em. And they SAY that only illegal immigrants go there, but that's a load of balogne..'cause I know of citizens which're shipped off there too. People are being arrested just for being dissidents again..or protesting, or even speaking against the police or the president when your rights are being violated. And they are sayin' "torture's necessary". Sure, they may not cut you up, use their fists against you..or won't mostly as long as a psychiatrist's around..but they'll deprive you of light, food, water, social contact..waterboard you. And that's slowly not becoming ONLY in our prisons in other countries, or Gauntanomo..they're startin' to bring it here in those detention centers. How they treat the people they send there is DEPLOREABLE.

I mean look at what's being done. We're only a hair away from becoming worse than Wilson..and it could happen overnight..because so much has happened to lead up to it. Patriot Act, Real ID, police and government monitering every phone call you make..cameras beginning to be alot more frequent on every street, the loss of habeas corpus, posse comitatus..the President saying he can declare martial law whenever he thinks there's an emmergency..police wanting to get mobile cameras..Drones I believe they're called for themselves..and crap, look at what's happened to our good men and women in blue! They're mostly in black now. With masks that cover their faces..with armored cars, tear gas, rubber bullets, HUGE freaking rifles that, when I was a kid..NO cop ever had because those things don't maim they mostly kill..and now they're getting bazookas, tanks, and a whole bunch of other stuff which I only heard of the military having. Protesters are being denied a permit to protest more and more..and so when they show up to protest they can lawfully arrest them..they'll even unlawfully arrest them when they show up and press conference instead of protesting.

Free Speech zones..

We're setting ourselves up, basically to get rid of freedom..in a way I don't think Woodrow ever dreamed and Hitler only fantasized about. Fascist, totaltarian state. And it's..insane. I mean..from all the things that happened in history, you would've thought that humanity would've learned its lesson by now. But yeah..thanks for bringing up that example. So many people have forgotten it, sadly.

Posted by MyFreedomWings | September 10, 2007 6:02 AM