Dec. 18th, 2003

arisbe: (Default)
"My first thought on hearing the breaking news was that Mary had predicted the downfall of the brutal and tyrannical Saddam, just as the hearers of this gospel in her time would have understood it to mean the collapse of their oppressive Roman rulers. Rulers everywhere have reason to be concerned about the new kingdom brought about by the birth of Christ: The more unjust their rule, the more they ought to worry. This new king, says Mary, will turn the world upside down.

"Mary's stunning announcement about the high and mighty being brought low and the lowly exalted is at the heart of the Christmas story - this is how the scriptures portray the social meaning of the Son of God born in an animal stall. Mary is herself a poor young woman, part of an oppressed race, and living in an occupied country. Her prayer is the hope of the downtrodden everywhere, a prophecy that those who rule by wealth and domination, rather than by serving the common good, will be overturned because of what has just happened in the little town of Bethlehem. Mary's proclamation can be appropriately applied to any rulers or regimes that prevail through sheer power, instead of by doing justice.

"But the leaders of the world's last remaining superpower, who now claim credit for Saddam's downfall, will likely miss the point of Mary's song, and certainly show no understanding of how her words might also apply to them. It is theologically accurate to say (and was proven historically true) that Mary was prophesying the end of "Pax Romana" (the "peace" of Roman rule) in her great Magnificat - but not only of Rome. If those who would enforce a new "Pax Americana" (a term that they themselves now like to use) continue their vision of success through unilateral dominance, they too could suffer the same fate as Rome, or even Saddam. That is part of the meaning of Christmas that you won't be hearing this year in the media's messages of good cheer."


Click above to read the complete essay, and some others worth your attention as well.
arisbe: (Default)
This just turned up in my email:

There was a young man who said, "Though
It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see
is the "I" that knows "me"
When I know that I know that I know."
arisbe: (Default)
"As this Court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center once stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our country and of the responsibilities the President and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation. But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress.

"Where, as here, the President's power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of American citizens on American soil because 18 U.S.C. ยง 4001(a) (2000) (the "Non-Detention Act") prohibits such detentions absent specific congressional authorization. Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("Joint Resolution"), passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is not such an authorization, and no exception to section 4001(a) otherwise exists. In light of this express prohibition, the government must undertake to show that Padilla's detention can nonetheless be grounded in the President's inherent constitutional powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637-38 (Jackson, J., concurring). We conclude that it has not made this showing. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address the detention of an American citizen seized within a zone of combat in Afghanistan, such as the court confronted in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003) ("Hamdi III"). Nor do we express any opinion as to the hypothetical situation of a congressionally authorized detention of an American citizen.

"Accordingly, we remand to the District Court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing Secretary Rumsfeld to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days, at which point the government can act within its legislatively conferred authority to take further action. For example, Padilla can be transferred to the appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him. If appropriate, he can also be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003). Under any scenario, Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extended to other citizens."

Profile

arisbe: (Default)
arisbe

March 2011

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
202122232425 26
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 12:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios