Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
coloradodem2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:44 AM
Original message
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges.
Edited on Fri Jul-09-04 12:49 AM by coloradodem2004
Latin translation of "In Time of War, the Law falls Silent".

This is also a title of a Seventh Season episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. In this episode, a member of a rogue agency called Section 31 tries to get Dr. Bashir to spy on the Romulans. Bashir does not want to do it, but his commander (Sisko) says that he should do it, so he can expose Section 31. Bashir travells to Romulus with an Admiral named Ross. The agent (Sloan) from 31 wants Bashir to evaluate the health of a Romulan named Koval. This Romulan is an opponent of the alliance with the Federation. Bashir thinks that the 31 agent is trying to murder this Romulan. Bashir decided to confide in another Romulan (Cretak) who was a proponent of the alliance. He also asks her to get the other Romulan's personal database in order to find leads to Sloan's accomplace on Romulus. Koval then asks Bashir to join him in discussing a virus and then after being tortured, Bashir is brought before a committee. Sloan is brought in looking beaten, and after having gotten information from him, and they discovered that there is no Section 31 and Sloan was just an intelligence operative who wanted revenge for the death of a starfleet admiral by murdering Koval. Bashir was cleared. Cretak, on the other hand, is convicted of treason due to her "involvement". Bashir, figures out that it is a fabrication and realizes that the admiral who is on board the ship that took him to Romulus had involvment with this. Admiral Ross lead Bashir to believe that Sloan had an accomplice and earlier in the episode, Ross had an aneurysm, Bashir would turn to Cretak putting her in the position of getting in trouble. Ross then admits that Sloan is still alive and that Koval is a mole for the Federation. Koval and Cretak were both competing to get into a committee. And the elimination of Cretak left it wide open for Koval to get in. THe reason this was done is with an ally of the Federation in the high ranks of the Romulan Empire, the Romulans would not switch sides in the Dominion War. Bashir, was angry and Ross said "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". Bashir after quoting it in English said "So, have we become a 24th century Rome. Where Ceaser can do no Wrong?"


Some of the episode may or may not relate well to our current situation except for a few things. While the war in this case is a manufactured one, the Bush Administration has lived by this credo. This episode was inspired in part by a book by William Rehnquist about the habeas corpus and the suspension during the Civil War by Lincoln. Saying this is a case of the Roman dictum. While the episode was about espionage, it does make a commentary on American society under the Bush Administration in particular.

So, have we become a 21st Century Rome where Ceaser can do no wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. Scalia pointedly rejected this line of thinking
It was seen as a slap at Rehnquist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coloradodem2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That is surprising.
When you consider the way Scalia has helped Bush and Cheney. How did Scalia reject this line of thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Scalia's words
<snip>

Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis--that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation or application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war, and in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accomodate it.
<snip>

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. but how would Scalia feel about the dictum
inter arma silent legislator?

His view of the Constitution worries me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC