[Conor Friedersdorf]
Radar Magazine has an interesting piece by Christopher Ketcham that asks, "Is the government compiling a secret list of citizens to detain under martial law?"
Usually a news consumer can safely assume that the answer to any question posed in a headline is "no". Hopefully that's the case here, though given the Bush Administration's track record on secret government programs it's hard to be sure.
What struck me about the article is that Americans haven't really had much political discussion about what should happen in a national emergency. I'd like to see that question raised in one of the upcoming presidential debates, though the risk is that asking about such matters will distract us from Rev. Wright and Televangelist Parsley.
Hey, maybe I can get on the list!
Glory to Muhammed!
Down with infidel America!
It's a good question. And an area that Americans should be educated on. They should be told what "core rights" they maintain in a national emergency and what rights they surrender in a valid national emergency to state or Federal authorities with emergency powers legislatures pass to protect the general public and improve time to recover from the emergency - be it war, disease, natural disaster.
Every emergency, it seems, is full of stories of ignorant Americans claiming the Gov't has "no right" to:
1. Stop them from selling "their private property" - food at 500% markup, bottled water at 20 bucks a jug - to "the free market of disaster survivors".
2. Order their evacuation, block travel.
3. Impose curfews.
4. Impose quarantines.
5. Put civilians under US soldiers orders, even martial law. In certain circumstances, to be conscripted for involuntary labor by civil authorities for projects like floodwall repairs, digging mass graves after a nuke attack....
6. Shoot looters if it is easier on scarce resources needed for order and public safety, in exceptional circumstances - than try and arrest them.
7. Block public assembly.
They have the authority to curtail such freedoms and rights in an emergency. Even suspend habeas corpus and access to civilian courts and hearings. (It's right in the Constitution)
They lack others, in any emergency:
1. They may not commandeer resources without compensation or a plan to compensate owners.
2. They may not forcably confiscate firearms from private homes (NOLA overstepped).
3. Soldiers may not take on law enforcement powers without permission of the Governor of the affected State(s).
4. They may not suspend or censor the media or the Peoples right to get information independent of authorities (no radio confiscations, etc.) without compelling evidence of criminal conduct (a radio station urging it's listeners to loot and burn).
Americans would benefit by schools objectively covering this subject in high school civics. It would better prepare us in dealing with future Katrinas, SF Earthquakes, military ops against the Homeland (and there will be future instances of each - have no doubt about it.)
Why would we want people who would want to cause these national emergencies to know how we'd respond?
If it's not, it ought to be.
chris ford-
I re-read the Constitution and while I could find the passage on suspension of habeas corpus:
>>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.
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Greg,
those powers, un-Constitutional as they may be, are well, and fully, enumerated in various "Executive Orders".
chris ford, though, does seem to be an instance of a larval-stage Brownshirt--sad for us, he's hardly alone..
Conor,
those lists have been USGov't currency since, at least, the 'Red Scare' in the '20's..
What the heck? A post on civil liberties? On Megan's blog? Did you get clearance for this?