re: #365 Decatur Deb

We both dislike it, but slam into the clash between citizens’ need for judicial transparency, and the warfighters’ need for security. In the heat of ongoing action, the fighters’ needs are usually given precedence.

Note the planning session I’m blase about would be the real situation we are in—these people have hit us and are avowed to hit us again.

“In the heat of ongoing action” is the important point. There is rarely a ticking bomb, there is rarely an immediate assault where a pinpoint strike will disable and disengage.

And I’m not blase about the planning session. Why, if it is a planning session here on US soil, can we not raid and capture?

The whole smacks of the same reasons given for approving torture “in some circumstances”. It smacks of what we used to exclaim at as the standard practice of the bad guys - THEY were the ones who made people disappear in the middle of the night, THEY were the ones who tortured, THEY were the ones who ignored process and went to assassination.

I know we do it, we have done it, and we will continue to do it. But I’d like a bright line about doing it in the US to US citizens in other than, well, “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (ie, same rule as suspensionthe privilige of writ of habeas corpus, and for pretty much the same underlying principles.)