The AlphaZee Funnies
It’s Candidate Brand Arbuckle and Candidate Brand Zucker from the undrawn story “Election Day”.
Reading the news lately, it seems to me that North America is going completely nuts. Daytime talk shows are being taken seriously. Fear and loathing have become mainstream political positions. The transformation of the United States into a tinpot despotism, started by Bush, is continuing apace under Obama. This worries me since, as a Canadian, if their country joins the third world then Newfoundland is going to have to move in with the Hunger Dogs. That’s not good.
Or maybe it’s just me. Maybe North America has always been crazy, but I couldn’t tell until I left. It is true that people tend to normalize inanity after they’ve been soaking in it for a while. So to all my North American readers I say this: the situation may be normal, but it’s still all fucked up.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Here’s the problem, the law was against Mr. Arar in this case. The courts rule based on law. Hence the courts ruled against Mr. Arar. Now, that said, the law may be unconstitutional. In that case, the case will go to the Supreme Court and the law could be overturned. Once courts start ruling based on justice over law, you start sliding down an awfully slippery slope.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Dude, it’s always been FUBARED, and always will be FUBARED, because human societies, by definition, are FUBARED. The trick is to be less FUBARED than everybody else. (8-)
JGH
November 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
As an American-born citizen who has lived here my whole life and taught what a great nation of freedom and opportunities this is, I’d really like to be able to deny the accusations of a gradual transformation of these United States into an increasingly corrupt, fascist empire. However, in good conscious I can not deny this.
The way I see it, things are starting to get out of hand. It’s much like putting mobsters or bullies in charge. They will certainly try to keep order and security, scaring people into submission and rooting out “trouble-makers”. However, they demand large tributes and concessions for this protection. And the longer they are in power and the more comfortable and secure they are in their position, the more they will demand in tributes and concessions. Considering that they get to write their own paychecks, write or modify the laws for everyone (else) to follow and that there is less and less accountability, is it any wonder that things are the way they are?
I see this “Arar v Ashcroft” case as the bullies testing the waters, to see how much they can get away with before the public starts to voice outrage or demand accountability. Perhaps they were surprised when there was none to speak of. Then again, perhaps not… But if they can get away with this much, then who knows what they’ll try to get away with next? They basically gave themselves a rubber stamp to excuse torture and the trampling of constitutional rights without the possibility of incrimination. What do you think an increasingly corrupt and fascist power would do next?
This excuse of “National Security” is starting to have widespread use and this scares me. They’re basically saying they don’t have to give us a real reason for any of the things they do. It’s much like what Lord Acton once said:
“Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”
That Appeals Court Denies Justice to Torture Victim article is an eye-opener. Thanks for sharing. But further background about Maher Arar and the case is helpful. I might recommend this Wikipedia link, except I understand that Wikipedia may not be the most reliable of sources. (But then, I don’t entirely trust mainstream media, either.)
Burzmali wrote: “The courts rule based on law.”
But who is it that picks replacement Judges? And who is it that writes the law? Political parties (only two and, IMO, not much difference between them) wield a great deal of power - so much power that they can effectively block any chances of a third party. They can even have a presidential candidate arrested on trumped-up charges. (See Ralph Nader denied access to presidential debates for details.)
And, let’s not forget that the courts get to decide on how laws are interpreted. A very good lawyer (which nearly all judges and politicians have to be) is so knowledgeable in law and so skilled with debate and words as to often be able to twist the meaning of the law whichever way they desire.
“…the law may be unconstitutional.”
Is there any question in your mind that this is unconstitutional?
“In that case, the case will go to the Supreme Court and the law could be overturned.”
What chances are there of this ruling being overturned? Almost none, I’m afraid. Sadly, just because a ruling or law is unconstitutional does not mean it will get sent to the Supreme Court, let alone get overturned. It’s happened before (such as the passing of Ashcroft’s Patriot Act) and it will happen again and again… until citizens finally cry “enough is enough” and stand up for themselves.
“Once courts start ruling based on justice over law…”
I understand that line of reasoning. However, as I see it, this case is more about a twisted interpretation of the law rather than a preservation of law over justice. You’re assuming that the Judicial and Legislative branches haven’t already slipped down that slope and are nearing the bottom, which they are. In fact, this case proves it. If the court was not corrupt they would have admitted some accountability and dismissed any application of law that prevents such as unconstitutional.
PS: This a brilliant strip. Though, I might find it more funny if some part of me didn’t suspect that - just perhaps - some of the rumors of members of Congress being baby-eating Satanists MIGHT be based on more than just fiction…
November 6th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Burzmali- Does this court have the authority to judge based on the constitution, or must that kind of decision be passed on to the supreme court? I’m afraid I don’t know enough about American law to argue the specifics of this case. What I object to isn’t the ruling per se, but the entire FU’d situation.
Jerry- Have you ever heard the song “Worse” by Too Much Joy? I think you’d like them.
http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php?page_id=351
November 7th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Anonymous1, you are dealing with the big picture, the court dealt with specifics. The big picture causes outrage, but the devil is in the details. “I was tortured by some guy I can’t identify and hence can’t be called to rebut my accusations” that’s a tricky statement. Hindsight is 20/20 after all. I wouldn’t discount the Supreme, if the lower court split that heavily, they could well overturn the case.
Typically, the Supreme court is the only court which will overturn a federal law without precedent. The other courts can, but the losing side would just appeal anyways, so it ends up in the Supreme’s lap one way or another.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:37 am
“I was tortured by some guy I can’t identify and hence can’t be called to rebut my accusations”
As one judge pointed that, this line of logic would imply that merely having the foresight to wear a hood during the act would make them immune from prosecution. Clearly that requirement is too strict if it’s the only thing standing in the way of the pursuit of justice. Government officials should not be able to hide behind hypertechnicalities, else our courts and our system of checks and balances would be broken.
I understand there is a legal requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place and to identify who was responsible. But that’s impossible to do if a reasonable investigation is not allowed to be conducted. If the court was really interested in justice they would have ordered such an investigation.
Besides, it didn’t stop the Canadian government from concluding he had been tortured. And, I don’t think this should be the issue. Nor is the real issue whether or not denying the accused meaningful access to a lawyer is unconstitutional. (Which it is. But then, so is the Patriot Act which “bypasses” this. President Lincoln really opened a Pandora’s Box when he suspended Habius Corpus during wartime.)
The key issue is why he was deported to Syria - instead of Canada - while the Powers That Be would have known he would most likely be tortured there? Or, instead, why didn’t they just have him tailed, possibly cooperating with the Canadian government, to see if he led them to a terrorist cell or do a more thorough investigation?
But, aside from all that, split decision or not, the court defending such actions as totally beyond incrimination on the grounds of “Nashonal Security”, making everyone involved “untouchable” is - in my mind - evidence of an ulterior motive at work. To me, this whole thing stinks of corruption and politicians covering their behinds so as to become immune to legal consequences for human rights abuses (such as the use of torture).
Clearly, those in charge are not above deporting a terrorist suspect (i.e., “person of interest”) to 3rd world countries like Syria with an understanding that he would be tortured there to get him to talk. That is, because they could not legally condone torture on U.S. soil, so they let others do the dirty work.
“The other courts can [overturn a federal law], but the losing side would just appeal anyways, so it ends up in the Supreme’s lap one way or another.”
I fail to understand how that should excuse any court of democracy from delivering justice. If it is within their power, then they should uphold the Constitution, the Law, and Justice, as they’ve sworn to do. The likelihood of their decision being appealed or overturned should have little bearing.
We know that Al Qada uses torture. But should the U.S.? Should we really stoop to their inhumane level in an effort to stop them? (BTW: The U.N. already kicked the U.S. off the Human Rights panel!) If the United States were to turn into a fascist state that tramples on basic human rights, then wouldn’t that mean the terrorists win? By that, I mean I hope they don’t manage to lure the U.S. into destroying itself as we know it through destroying democracy.
That’d be tragically ironic, considering how “Uncle Sam” is supposed to be “spreading democracy” to the Middle East. (And this, in turn, should remind us of the tragic results of trying to do the same during Desert Storm and earlier in Vietnam and Korea…) I’ve always thought that setting a good example for others (esp. children) was far more effective than trying to drill it into them with brute force. And then doing the opposite behind their backs just makes for a bad parent and a hypocrite.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Specifics versus details once again. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents for more details on what he was required to advance his Bivens action. Canada could care less about this case as they only handed him over. The US court sees this as a fishing expedition that could expose information that is a matter of national security. The Appeals courts opinion was that Arar didn’t make a strong enough Bivens claim to outweigh the needs of national security. Some of the court disagreed. The Supreme Court will have the final say.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:33 am
General JC Christian, Patriot, on the subject:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/11/rule-of-law-vs-rulers-above-law.html