A federal appeals court ruled today that the president can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in the absence of criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. The government contends that Padilla trained at al Qaeda camps and was planning to blow up apartment buildings in the United States.
==========================
And since the war on terrorism can't be won -- something Bush himself has stated -- we can now hold detainees for the rest of their lives. And, of course, "detainee" is anyone declared an enemy combatant, which really saves time and overhead.
Construction on the new dungeons underneath the White House should begin any time now.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'll just be sitting here in the corner rocking, thanks.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
This is great news! Now we can do what we should have done all along- lock up all of the BAD people forever without silly trials with ther ridiculous evidence and due process while the good people may prosper in peace. I only wish we could execute all of the bad people so we wouldn't have to pay to feed and house them.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
"New dungeons"??? Apparently you've never been on the tour...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I grant you that these are uncertain times, and I'm not recommending we release the guy and give him $100 and a new suit.
But more and more this country seems to be moving away from due process and the rights of the individual to seek justice. If Padilla is a war criminal, try him and convict him. Why is this even an issue?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My opinion on this is that of Justices Stevens and Scalia: American citizens must either be charged and tried for a crime or released. It's that simple. If we're worried about U.S. citizens caught fighting us abroad, we can charge them with treason.
I'm not saying this would be acceptable for non-citizens, but there is a different body of law that comes into play.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Remember the head of the Education department who claimed that the teachers union were terrorists? Now he can have them all locked away.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The evil frosting on this really bad cake is the last sentence:
"The decision was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who is one of a number of people under consideration by President Bush for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Have we lost our minds? Have we forgotten what America is supposed to be?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Have we lost our minds? Have we forgotten what America is supposed to be?
Yes. Those in power have, anyway.
Edited to add: Man. We're screwed.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Clarification to This Article A previous online version of this story did not specify that the court ruling applied only during wartime. That has been changed in this version.
What's the definition of wartime? I don't think we're technically at war with another country right now, since both the Afghan and Iraqi governments are the ones that we fought to put into power. Wasn't the Korean War only ever officially a "police action?" If the "War on Terror" counts as wartime the whole thing is even more ridiculous. This is absolutely awful.
Editted for clarification and to add: I agree with what Dag said.
--Enigmatic
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
What can you charge him with under US law? I'm not a lawyer but I'll wager a great deal of evidence rests in the inadmissable column. So if he's released and he commits some real action against the US foreign or domestic will the press rage at how we knew who he was and didn't do anything. It's a double edged sword. I think treasonous acts put you in the realm of being a prisoner of war and in that case we can and should hold the individuals as long as the conflict lasts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Treason is specifically required by the Constitution to be proven with an extraordinary amount of proof. Precisely because it is so easy to make the accusation, we must be careful in how it is proven.
I'm not necessarily opposed to pre-trial detention being based at least partly on secret evidence (although not for convictions). But no citizen may be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and this ain't it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Non-Americans can also be detained at American airports and held in prison (note that they are not technically "in America" since they are denied entrance at the airport before being taken from the airport to the prison) for an indefinite period without any need to provide access to counsel, access to authorities from the detainee's home country, or lay charges.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What's really horrific, Twinky, is that there are documented instances of the administration picking up non-citizens, flying them to some lush vacation spot in the middle east, having them tortured, then later releasing them with apologies because they found out they weren't the person they thought they were.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed.
Something similar happened to a Canadian citizen in the not-too-distant past.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
For whoever asked...we are at war, didn't you know? The congress declared a "War on Terrorism" just after 9/11. This, the worst defined war in history, has come with flagrant abuse of citizens' rights under the guise of "safety" and "wartime."
No, we don't remember what America was all about, and I don't just mean the officials at the top. There is a culture of fear in this country. "Even one is too many," is something I have heard countless times. We are obsessed with safety, and as Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it, "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I suggest that it's worse than that. I think that when you trade liberty for safety you can't have either one, whether or not you deserve them. I don't think it's a one or the other thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Very disturbing ruling, I think. Ugh. It's one thing with, say, a man captured on a foreign battlefield fighting US troops. I'm a bit uneasy with THAT too, but that's at least obviously different.
But now US citizens on US soil? Unarmed? Not fighting when captured? I can't imagine anything so uniquely against both my understanding of the Constitution and the 'theme' of the USA (for lack of a better word).
--------
On a technical note, I suppose there is some slight possibility of minor hope: must it be a declared war?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Christine- I'm fairly certain there was no official declaration of war. As far as I know, there hasn't actually been one since World War 2. Just authorization for "operations".
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Apparently this is one of the things it means when people say "remember the lessons of 9/11." What we remember, apparently, is that civil liberties are a gift from the government and can be taken away at the whim of a sitting President.
Yep, that's exactly what our founding fathers intended. I'm glad we've gone the route of insisting on strict interpretation of the Constitution so that we know from whence our rights originate.
I understand that the legal definition of treason doesn't include undermining the constitution through abuse of the law, but it should.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This sucks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
We have a process for that, Bob. The US SC.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
As soon as you allow detention without trial (or at the very least judges being able to examine the evidence if a full trial would jeopardise intelligence sources) then you allow the potential for any one the government doesn’t like to be locked up.
Until recently in the UK we had indefinite detention without trial for foreign nationals suspected of being involved with terrorism but who could not be deported as their countries of origin were considered unsafe. The courts forced the government to rethink.
The first few to be locked up are probably (only probably, without any one reviewing the evidence we can never be sure) a risk to security. As the numbers creep up and outside scrutiny reduces I wouldn’t be surprised if the standards for belief of a risk drop. Then we can end up with a situation that anyone can be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial on the smallest suspicion.
Democracy requires that people who are inconvenient can not just disappear.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
I believe many of you are over-reacting. Until the Pres can do this in secret I am not worried at all.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What happened to Maher Arar happened in secret. Maybe U.S. citizens don't need to worry, but foreigners traveling in and through the U.S. sure as hell do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd be worried if I were being held indefinitely, whether or not it was secret.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why shouldn't we worry because it cannot be done secretly?
(incidentally, it HAS been done in secret, to foreigners at least)
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Well honestly I am fine with foreigners being worried while they travel through or work in the US. I would be worried if I was traveling through another country. Except maybe Canada.
I just think the current state of our legal system warrants it. I guess I can understand rapists getting let go because the police failed to read the rapist his miranda rights.. I just think terrorists or wanna-be terrorists are so dangerous to our society that we actually need one person who can say 'Screw that, lock him up and throw away the key.'
I think 20 years ago this would have been far more dangerous than today. The internet, 24 hour news, gazillions of grass roots goverment watchdogs- these makes me comfortable that the President, be it a dem or a pub, can make this call and not abuse it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just think terrorists or wanna-be terrorists are so dangerous to our society that we actually need one person who can say 'Screw that, lock him up and throw away the key.'
If this were a procedure failure, I might agree. But this is a case where he's not being charged.
That's like arresting the suspected rapist but not telling him why. Big difference from "forgetting to read him his rights."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I definitely disagree with this:
quote:I just think terrorists or wanna-be terrorists are so dangerous to our society that we actually need one person who can say 'Screw that, lock him up and throw away the key.'
But there's an interesting point to be made here:
quote:I guess I can understand rapists getting let go because the police failed to read the rapist his miranda rights.
It does seem wrong for people to actually get away with crimes just because their rights were infringed. It's always strange to watch an episode of Law and Order where evidence gets suppressed -- it smacks of injustice.
Maybe a better system would be one in which police were punished (severely, not just slap-on-the-wrist) for violating rights, but illegally gathered evidence still counted as evidence. Any thoughts?
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
quote: Well honestly I am fine with foreigners being worried while they travel through or work in the US. I would be worried if I was traveling through another country.
Luckily for world trade and tourism the majority of people disagree with you. I don’t think a person is less of a person simply because they hold a different nationality. Whilst there are definitely countries I would be worried about travelling through none of them are places that are good examples of how I would like a country to be run.
Since you obviously do not care about the foreigners visiting think about the implication of you view on American jobs if it were to become the accepted position. Foreigners would be reluctant to travel to the USA, which would have a major impact on American jobs, as businesses (many of which are multi national) would probably choose to have their headquarters in a country where their staff could safely meet. Your tourism industry would also be devastated.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by MoralDK: Well honestly I am fine with foreigners being worried while they travel through or work in the US. I would be worried if I was traveling through another country. Except maybe Canada.
Um, did you read twinky's link? We secretly detained a Canadian citizen and sent him to Syria to be tortured. So you might feel fine traveling in Canada, but they can't feel fine traveling here.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
ElJay- I am all for stopping Syria from conducting torture.
Kettricken- Of course tourism industry people don't think the same. But they would be hurt even more if terrorists were blowing up airplanes, malls, and sitting in their trunks sniping people all the time.
Destineer- I understand what you're saying. I think you must simply have more faith in our criminal justice system than I.
Dagonee- You're right dude, big difference. After seeing the state of things in New Orleans though I feel more comfortable with our government getting a little more harsh on the individual to protect the masses. I mean what if it was a suicide bomber smashing his van into a levee instead of a hurricane? I'm afraid this situation has clearly shown the terrorists just how vulnerable we are. And I wouldn't be surprised if other weak points of civil engineering are being scoped out this very minute. I bet Jose Padilla is giggling with glee when he watches the news lately.
But remember, the main reason why I'm comfortable with this ruling is mainly because of people like you guys. It's people like you who will not let it get out of hand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A suicide bomber bombing a levy would have a trivial effect in comparison to katrina.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Best way to not let it get out of hand is to not let it go anywhere and remove the capability as soon as possible.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What I don't think you get, though, MoralDK, is that this is an example of Syria conducting torture on your behalf. Your behalf and my behalf and every single American's behalf, because we secretly detained a citizen of another country using the lame-ass excuse that our airports aren't our soil and shipped him off to be tortured so we could get the information he didn't have while still claiming that we, personally, don't torture people.
Stopping Syria from conducting torture would be nice, but I think stopping providing them with torture victims would be an excellent intermediary step. And really, would they have tortured this guy if we hadn't asked them to? They had no reason to arrest him. Canada has found no evidence that he's guilty of anything at all. We wanted it done. So stating that you're all for stopping Syria from conducting torture is either very ingenuous or a load of crap.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're right dude, big difference. After seeing the state of things in New Orleans though I feel more comfortable with our government getting a little more harsh on the individual to protect the masses. I mean what if it was a suicide bomber smashing his van into a levee instead of a hurricane? I'm afraid this situation has clearly shown the terrorists just how vulnerable we are. And I wouldn't be surprised if other weak points of civil engineering are being scoped out this very minute. I bet Jose Padilla is giggling with glee when he watches the news lately.
You're assuming one thing: That Padilla is a terrorist. Or a "wannabe-terrorist."
What you seem to be forgetting is that we have ways for making that determination in this country. They're called "trials" and the right to them is guaranteed in the Constitution.
quote:It's people like you who will not let it get out of hand.
We can't do a blessed thing about it. The methods for keeping it from getting out of hand have already been determined - in the Constitution. But they're not being followed.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"I bet Jose Padilla is giggling with glee when he watches the news lately." Dude, if I had been sitting on my ass in a naval brig for the last three years with no access to a laywer and no charges filed against me, I would probably be "giggling with glee" too, watching the US government trip all over itself. I'd probably also be more than a little insane, and damn angry. I cant say it better than Dagonee. Your assumptions, even the militaries assumptions, should not be enough to keep this man from freedom. We all deserve the right to defend ourselves in a court of law. If you dont believe this is true for Jose Padilla, what makes it true for you?
One of the reasons this ruling makes me so frickin nervous is that the laws it upholds have ALREADY been so thoroughly abused. The man who was detained around the same time, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was released in 2004. He was sent to Saudi Arabia, that mecca of human rights, and forbidden to sue the US for injuries sustained during his incarceration. This is a quote from Democracy Now: "In June, the Supreme Court ruled that as a U.S. citizen, Hamdi can not be held indefinitely without access to the U.S. legal system. This week, Hamdi"s attorneys and federal prosecutors made the surprise announcement that they were negotiating terms for his release. Part of the deal may call on Hamdi to renounce his citizenship, move to Saudi Arabia, accept monitoring by Saudi authorities, and promise not to sue the U.S. government.", before he was released. This, is an MSNBC article about it. And this is a little bit more inflammatory, but also more indepth article about his release. What I dont understand is how the decision by the SC upholding this mans rights doesnt apply in Jose Padillas situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I dont understand is how the decision by the SC upholding this mans rights doesnt apply in Jose Padillas situation.
I haven't read the decision, but the newspaper description strongly suggests this was a different issue. The Hamdi decision stated that his case was eligible for review. This decision, I believe, was an appeal of the review that Padilla was due under Hamdi.
Stevens and Scalia's decision in Hamdi said that U.S. citizens aren't just entitled to review; they must be charged or released. But it had no controlling force of law - the majority did not accept this.
Assuming my suppositions about this decision are correct, it doesn't directly contradict the Hamdi decision.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The big assumption that is being made by the "Keep him in jail" crowd is that he is guilty, and that everyone the country claims is a terrorist, is in fact, a terrorist.
We have all seen the reports of what Hamdi was going to be doing, but where did those reports come from? The government. Or to be more precise, those who locked him away.
What I have never seen made clear is who decided who is an enemy combatant? Is it the President or a politician who may find it handy to have other politicians locked away? Or is it the same uncorruptable beaurocrats who we've seen perform so well in Katrina's wake, or at Abu Graib?
Imagine that beaurocrat Joe takes a dislike to Tom. Tom cut Joe off in traffic, or sleapt with his wife, or took the last fresh chocolate glazed donut at the Crispy Creme. Now Joe fills out the paperworks, creates a story, and the FBI locks Tom away for ever. This isn't done in secret. However, when the press try to find out what Tom did to get arrested, they are given the story Joe made up. When asked for evidence of this story, it is all reported as being classified. Tom is guilty by accusation to the whole world. He is held in a brig where he gets to speak with no lawyer or anyone who can here his side of the story that isn't part of the group that arrested him.
Or imagine that Tom W. Brooks is the terrorist, but a piece of paper gets hit with a typo and Tom M. Brookes is taken away?
I am not saying that our present administration or those currently in the government would do these things, but it is highly possible that some future person or persons will take this precedent to new lows.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
It amazes me that you guys have so much faith in our criminal justice system. It's just unacceptable to let a terrorist slip through the cracks. I agree that everyone typically deserves a trial. But I think if the President needs to make an exception because of large potential threats - then he or she should be able to. As long as it is never kept secret. I would probably feel like you do if it was obvious some attempt was made to reform the criminal justice system. But it just seems very screwed up sometimes. Too often in fact. Even if it is better than our civil court system.
I understand why you don't trust the President. But I do. For the most part. Or I guess I trust the office of President a little more than you guys. You see it as an abuse of power, I see it as doing his job.
And ElJay I remember reading something about that guy. It did seem very wrong but I don't remember all the details. Was anyone in the government punished for it?
And Dagonee, "You're assuming one thing: That Padilla is a terrorist. Or a "wannabe-terrorist." Yes I am assuming that. If he was obviously innocent then I think it would be talked about a little more. There I go assuming again. Are my assumptions wrong?
foundling- Yes. If the President thought I was a threat to this country then yeah, I would HOPE he would lock me up. Exactly my point. Do you think people who harm the US want me or you to have our way? Does Jose Padilla's situation scare some people from attempting terrorist attacks? Maybe, I'm not saying that is reason enough though.
I don't know. Back in the 90's they told me that Bill Clinton was going to come into my house while I was asleep and kill my dog and confiscate my handguns. That never happened. My point is when I (and I hope others) see it going too far we'll jump in line with you and say hold on. I just don't think we are going too far. I think that Islamic Terrorism isn't going away. And maybe now 5-10 people a year are kicked out of the country, or detained for a long time. Back in the 90's (again) I wish someone would have detained Timothy McVey.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes I am assuming that. If he was obviously innocent then I think it would be talked about a little more.
We don't lock people who aren't "obviously innocent" up in this country. Or, at least, we used to strive not to do this.
quote: There I go assuming again. Are my assumptions wrong?
Do you understand that this man has been in a tiny room for most of the last several years. That he has not been charged with a crime? That he is a U.S. citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil?
quote:I understand why you don't trust the President. But I do. For the most part. Or I guess I trust the office of President a little more than you guys. You see it as an abuse of power, I see it as doing his job.
This isn't about trust. Without even going into the type of corruption Dan outlined, this is a bad idea. People make mistakes. Because of this very simple fact, we have procedures that are supposed to catch mistakes. Those procedures have been disregarded now.
quote: I wish someone would have detained Timothy McVey.
Based on what, exactly? Before he bought any fertilizer, what would have differentiated him from a bunch of other people who are pissed off at our goevernment?
You're entirely ignoring the selection problem. It's not that I don't want terrorists detained indefinitely. It's that I don't want innocent people locked up. And the standard for differentiating innocent and guilty is being ignored here.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by MoralDK: And ElJay I remember reading something about that guy. It did seem very wrong but I don't remember all the details. Was anyone in the government punished for it?
The link twinky provided in his post gives you a timeline to all the details, and articles in the Canadian press elaborating on them. No, no one has been punished for it. We still say we didn't do anything wrong. The only reason that guy ever got released is that his government apparently kept bugging Syria about it.
So it's not just a question of people being "kicked out of the country or detained for a long time." It's a question of people being beaten and tortured. So far not our citizens, although that doesn't make a difference to me, I don't think we should be doing it to anyone.
At least, as far as we know they haven't been US citizens. If we can lock citizens up indefinitely and not charge them with a crime or give them access to a lawyer, how do you know we're not torturing them too?
And you say you can't believe how much faith we have in the justice system. . . I can't believe how much faith you have in the office of the President. Do you really think he makes these decisions himself? He reviews the information of people who do the investigating, at best. At worst he trusts his advisors. . . "We have evidence that this person is a threat. He's a citizen, so you'll have to declare him an enemy combatant." "Okay, do it."
And there it is. There's no review, there's no checks. Someone disappears. And what if there is a mistake? It will never be caught.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying "that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." How much more so if that one innocent is beaten, sodimized, shocked with electricity, stripped naked and photographed. . . that's what we did to Iraqi prisoners at (Warning, explicit photos) Abu Ghraib, do you really think the people we send to SYRIA are treated any better?
I am honestly appalled at the views you've expressed in this thread, MoralDK. But you've opened my eyes a bit that not everyone feels the same way I do, and I appreciate that. So I'm going to donate a buck to Not In Our Name for every post you make this month, up to a limit that I can afford but shall keep private so as not to encourage you to try to hit it and then stop posting.
I hope you try to get my money's worth and become more involved in the board and the community. Oh, and if you're interested in Not In Our Name, here's a link to the Chicago chapter. Consider getting involved. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "You're assuming one thing: That Padilla is a terrorist. Or a "wannabe-terrorist." Yes I am assuming that. If he was obviously innocent then I think it would be talked about a little more.
Why do you think that? And out of interest, must someone be obviously innocent to receive a trial? Are trials only for people we already know aren't guilty?
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
1) Maher Arar aka the tortured Canadian.
Ok so this guy makes the US authorities nervous. He lands in the US on the way to Canada. And instead of allowing him to continue to to Canada -where he can slip across the border nearly anywhere- they send him back to Syria. Syria allegedly tortures him. Syria still sounds like the bad guy in this. All that the US did wrong was send him back where he came from. Right? Why would Syria do anything we asked? They are definately our enemy. What is being done to stop the human rights violations in Syria? Anything? Why is no one here condemning Syria? I read the timeline, and I can't see where we went wrong. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, I just don't see our crime. It's obvious a lot of you are upset about it, but on the surface it just looks like your run-of-the-mill blame Bush stuff you'd find at the democratic underground headquarters.
2) Jose Padilla
quote:Do you understand that this man has been in a tiny room for most of the last several years. That he has not been charged with a crime? That he is a U.S. citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil?
Yes I get it. Did you know this? Padilla was captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after flying in from Pakistan, and U.S. authorities believe he planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city. Now. As long as the government keeps the public informed about this I think it's a solid victory. The second they don't feel the need to make these detentions public is the day I start freaking out with you. I can think of quite a few situations where I wouldn't trust a jury, or a liberal activist judge to protect us. This is one of those times.
quote:This isn't about trust. Without even going into the type of corruption Dan outlined, this is a bad idea. People make mistakes. Because of this very simple fact, we have procedures that are supposed to catch mistakes. Those procedures have been disregarded now.
I disagree. It boils down to nothing but trust. You either trust the court system - which really scares me, or you trust the President. A guy under amazing scrutiny and who is elected by the people every four years. It leads me to believe that peoples hate for the current President or John Ashcroft or whatever - makes it too easy to support the terrorists without even realizing it.
3) In general:
quote:You're entirely ignoring the selection problem.
No I'm not. The courts are the selection process. Right?
quote: Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying "that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." How much more so if that one innocent is beaten, sodimized, shocked with electricity, stripped naked and photographed. . . that's what we did to Iraqi prisoners at (Warning, explicit photos) Abu Ghraib, do you really think the people we send to SYRIA are treated any better?
No one should be tortured. Unless the bomb is ticking or something on a massive scale is about to happen and torture will prevent it. Abu Grab was bad mojo. I didn't like it one bit. But I bet it made a lot of terrorists in the region a little scared. So it may have helped in some sick sense. But I hope nothing like that is repeated.
quote:I am honestly appalled at the views you've expressed in this thread, MoralDK. But you've opened my eyes a bit that not everyone feels the same way I do, and I appreciate that. So I'm going to donate a buck to Not In Our Name for every post you make this month, up to a limit that I can afford but shall keep private so as not to encourage you to try to hit it and then stop posting.
Good for you. Make a difference. Stand up for what you believe in. I'm serious - bravo.
Mr Davidson- Let me put it another way. I believe that if this guy didn't look guilty then people would be explaining why the current administration is wrong. ABC would be running 24 news coverage of how GW JAILED A US CITIZEN. But as far as I can see the discussion is about how 'it could be you next' not 'how innocent' Padilla is.
omg this post is probably going to be a nightmare to read. Sorry about all the jumping around. It's late and I'm tired but I wanted to respond before tomorrow.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by MoralDK: And instead of allowing him to continue to to Canada -where he can slip across the border nearly anywhere- they send him back to Syria.
Please tell me you're not suggesting that because you feel the Canada/US border is not secure that the US should be having a say in who can enter Canada.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:The second they don't feel the need to make these detentions public is the day I start freaking out with you.
quote:It leads me to believe that peoples hate for the current President or John Ashcroft or whatever - makes it too easy to support the terrorists without even realizing it.
You make even funnier comments than Belle!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Padilla was captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after flying in from Pakistan, and U.S. authorities believe he planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city.
U.S. authorities "believe" he planned to do something illegal.
quote:No I'm not. The courts are the selection process. Right?
First, the government's contention is that the courts have no say in this. Second, the selection process this country has instituted in its most basic founding document involves proof with "clear and convincing evidence" for pretrial detention and proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to detention after trial. There's also a right to a speedy trial included in that document.
The selection process has been short-circuited in this case. The government's evidence has not been subjected to the rigorous standards needed to protect the rights of the accused.
quote:Let me put it another way. I believe that if this guy didn't look guilty then people would be explaining why the current administration is wrong.
This is the exact opposite of the standard we as a society have instituted. When someone is deprived of liberty, it is the depriver's job to explain why they are right. In this case, government witnesses have not been subjected to cross-examination and defense evidence has not been considered.
quote:ABC would be running 24 news coverage of how GW JAILED A US CITIZEN. But as far as I can see the discussion is about how 'it could be you next' not 'how innocent' Padilla is.
Because the method we have of determining whether someone is innocent or not HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. We don't know if he's innocent because there hasn't been a public trial. All we know is that the executive branch has requested the right to be the sole determiner of who should be locked up for life with no trial, and the courts have conceded most of this point so far.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
MoralDK:
Actually, it was the erosion of civil liberties that led me to stop supporting Bush and his administration, not the other way around.
Why are you surprised that we have "so much faith in out criminal justice system" when you have far more faith in a single man? I would not have that much faith in myself to make those sorts of decisions. Power corrupts, and it's best to have things as public as possible, and to have decision-making power spread around.
You insinuate that people who do not support the questionable treatment of alleged terrorists may in fact be supporting them. I will concede that the cost of preserving our freedom may allow some terrorists to slip through the cracks. What are you doing to make sure that our government never commits acts of terrorism? Because I'd rather run the relatively small risk being killed when a skyscraper is knocked down, than live in fear of a Saddamified government every single day of my life.
Do I think this will actually happen? Actually, it's hard to think that it would. I just don't even want to begin going down that road. You're right, one is too many. When it comes to violation of liberty without due process.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
This is why I now breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Canadian border. I want to work on justice, but from somewhere where I feel safe and where it feels like home.
The last time I crossed the border by car, there were armed US Customs Agents waving over US citizens to check our IDs and interview us before we got near Canadian customs. That is, leaving the US may not have been a choice.
I don't know if this is still going on. I do know that this was not being done at the request of the Canadian customs agents, as we asked.
This troubles me.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by MoralDK: 1) Maher Arar aka the tortured Canadian. [list] [*]Ok so this guy makes the US authorities nervous. He lands in the US on the way to Canada. And instead of allowing him to continue to to Canada -where he can slip across the border nearly anywhere- they send him back to Syria. Syria allegedly tortures him. Syria still sounds like the bad guy in this. All that the US did wrong was send him back where he came from. Right? Why would Syria do anything we asked? They are definately our enemy. What is being done to stop the human rights violations in Syria? Anything? Why is no one here condemning Syria? I read the timeline, and I can't see where we went wrong. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, I just don't see our crime. It's obvious a lot of you are upset about it, but on the surface it just looks like your run-of-the-mill blame Bush stuff you'd find at the democratic underground headquarters.
Sticking with my own particular ax I've picked to grind here. . .
1. How do you get we sent him back to Syria. He wasn't coming from Syria, he was coming from Tunsnia. They are two different countries. so we didn't "send him back to where he came from."
2. This man is a Canadian citizen who's lived in Canada for 18 years. He has a job there as an electrical engineer, and a wife and child there. He doesn't exactly fit your typical profile of a terrorist who's going to slip across the border. Canada investigated him when he got back and found no evidence that he was involved in terrorism. And we sent him to be tortured.
3. Why would Syria do what we want? How about because they are eager to improve relations with us and have been cooperating with us on the war on terrorism since September 11th? Here's one link with some information on US - Syria relations. . . points include:
- Syria and the United States have shared intelligence about al-Qaeda, according to U.S. government sources, and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly traveled to Syria to meet with Syrian intelligence officers.
- Syria has reportedly allowed U.S. officials to put questions to an alleged al-Qaeda associate who it’s holding, a Syrian-born German citizen first detained in Morocco.
- Syria has full diplomatic relations with the United States and has avoided comprehensive sanctions.
Here's a 2002 article from the Washington Post talking about our improving relations with Syria. . . some points to note:
- Syria's cooperation in the fight against al Qaeda was highlighted by the revelation this week that a key figure in the Sept. 11 plot, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, had been arrested in Morocco and sent to Syria for interrogation, with American knowledge. While U.S. officials have not been able to question Zammar, Americans have submitted questions to the Syrians.
- Nevertheless, officials said Syria has been unstinting in helping in the battle against al Qaeda, in large part because Syrian officials view fundamentalist Islamic movements as destabilizing. After Sept. 11, Syrian President Bashar Assad pledged his support in a letter to President Bush, and that has been followed up by concrete actions.
- Vincent Cannistraro, a former counterterrorism chief for the CIA, said Syria has "been completely cooperative" in investigating al Qaeda and persons associating with al Qaeda. In some cases, he said, Syrian officials have avoided arresting suspects so they can continue to monitor their conversations and movements and report back to the United States
- Assad, in an interview published yesterday in the San Jose Mercury News, said Syria within the past three months provided information on an al Qaeda operation that, if successful, would have killed "many American soldiers." He declined to provide details.
Does that sufficiently address your "why would they do anything we ask?" question? We are not completely friendly with them because of their support of Palistinian groups that we consider terrorists and the fact that they helped Iraq smuggle oil during sactions, but I think it's pretty clear that saying "they are definitely our enemy" is a gross mischaracterization, and that it wouldn't be at all out of character for us to send someone there for the express purpose of being "questioned" in ways that we are too squemish to do at home.
In fact, I don't believe we are denying it. It's hard to tell, because most Americans don't seem too interested in it, and it doesn't hit our newspapers very often so it's easier just to go with the CBC links. But according to their investigation, we first offered to send him to Canada on the condition that they promise to lock him up and throw away the key. They responded that he was a citizen and had citizen's rights, and they couldn't arrest him without evidence of wrong-doing, after which they would provide him with a trial. We either didn't want to provide that evidence or didn't have it, so we sent him to Syria instead.
So we held him here for over a week, had dialog with his country of residence, of which he is a citizen, and then sent him to a different country against his will, not the one he was traveling from, where he was locked up and tortured for over a year. How do you see this as an acceptable thing to do?
4. Why am I focusing on the US instead of Syria -- I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I am proud of that fact. I think my country has the potential to be the best place to live in the world, and we usually live up to that potential. We are a democracy. As a voter, I am responsible for the actions of my government. When my government does something that I feel is morally wrong, I am obligated to speak out against it.
Yeah, Syria shouldn't have tortured him. But they wouldn't have if we hadn't sent him there and asked them to. I'm not responsible for the actions of Syria's government, I'm responsible for the actions of mine. I can decry human rights abuses in Syria and work for international pressure to get them changed, but I can't vote out their politicians who are responsbile for the policies.
We are America. We are supposed to be a shining beacon of freedom and democracy. We are supposed to be a place where you are innocent until proven guilty, where everyone gets a fair shake, where people aren't damn well disappeared in the middle of the night and never heard from again because the government doesn't like something they said or the way they look. That's Soviet Russia or Communist China. We're not supposed to do that. That's why I care about our actions. Because in a few little cases, they are deplorable.
...I'm not done, but my parents just arrived for our Sunday morning bike ride, so that will have to do. Please, do respond! Use lots of posts if you want to! maybe I'll come back and address some of the other points that bug me later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is why I now breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Canadian border.
CT, I think it's clear that I am NOT happy about this decision. But I'm trying to figure out why you feel so much safer in Canada:
quote:In the secret trial cases of Hassan Almrei, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Adil Charkaoui, there is an official acknowledgement from the Canadian government that these men face a substantial risk of torture or death if deported. Expert human rights opinions have come to the same conclusion for Mohamed Harkat (who has yet to have his government pre-removal risk assessment). Yet still the government continues its efforts to deport these men, in the meantime condemning them to years of indefinite detention and, in one case, draconian house arrest release conditions.
The circumstances are quite different, of course, but the consequences to these men are remarkably similar.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No one should be tortured. Unless the bomb is ticking or something on a massive scale is about to happen and torture will prevent it. Abu Grab was bad mojo. I didn't like it one bit. But I bet it made a lot of terrorists in the region a little scared. So it may have helped in some sick sense. But I hope nothing like that is repeated.
Wow. You're like a poster boy for moral equivalency.
Do you REALIZE how much of a joke your username is?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The circumstances are quite different, Dags, but I agree that the Canadian government is behaving in an abhorrent manner over this. The problem, of course, is that Canadians hate looking closely at their own affairs.
I can't help but think that the reason for this is because so many people tie our national identity to "We are not the US". As a consequence stories where we can thump our collective chests and be proud about how we're not the US get a lot of air time while our own atrocities go on largely unnoticed. The list, sadly, is an ever-growing one.
But then, that's something for another thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This is why I now breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Canadian border.
CT, I think it's clear that I am NOT happy about this decision. But I'm trying to figure out why you feel so much safer in Canada:
Because I'm acting irrationally. *grin
Seriously, I'm not thinking clearly, I'm sure of that. I feel like a scared toddler.
[WAHHHH!!! ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:This is why I now breathe a sigh of relief when I cross the Canadian border.
CT, I think it's clear that I am NOT happy about this decision. But I'm trying to figure out why you feel so much safer in Canada...
Yup. We actually have an act that bears a faint resemblance to the USA PATRIOT Act, but in our case it was passed with no fanfare and no media attention. It isn't quite the same, but while the government claims it contains safeguards to prevent conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the summary is a fairly disturbing read. Why there isn't a huge stink being raised about this in Canada is incomprehensible to me.
quote:Security Certificates have been part of the immigration legislation since 1978:
- The certificate process is contained in provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), not the Anti-Terrorism Act.
- The use of certificates predates September 11, 2001. In fact, the certificate process has existed in immigration legislation in one form or another for over 20 years.
- Since 1991, twenty-seven certificates have been issued and, of these, only five have been issued since September 11, 2001.
Security Certificates are only used in exceptional cases:
- A certificate is issued only in select cases when there is information that needs to be protected for reasons of national security or for the safety of any person.
- Given the serious consequences of issuing such a certificate, this process is used judiciously. It is only used on a limited basis in very serious cases for individuals who present the highest level of risk.
Security Certificates do not apply to Canadian citizens:
- The provisions of the IRPA do not apply to Canadian citizens or to persons who are registered Indians pursuant to the Indian Act;
- Certificates only apply to permanent residents or foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security such as espionage, subversion or terrorism, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.
The security certificate process has been determined to be constitutional by the Canadian courts:
- The Supreme Court of Canada has validated the certificate process. In 1992, it examined the issue of in camera, ex parte proceedings (Chiarelli v. Canada) and ruled that the process does not breach the principles of fundamental justice and that it was not necessary that the individual be given details of intelligence investigation techniques or sources used to acquire the information upon which the two Ministers relied in issuing the Certificate.
- On December 10, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal reiterated in the Charkaoui decision that the certificate process is constitutional and is in accordance to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can also refer to the Ahani decision.
[ September 11, 2005, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
One more thing. The ATA contains a provision for a three-year review. The review began in late December, 2004, and is still underway. The reviewing bodies have one year to report back.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Please tell me you're not suggesting that because you feel the Canada/US border is not secure that the US should be having a say in who can enter Canada.
Sure. I’ll take that position. As Canada should be able to detain suspected terrorists trying to enter the US.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Padilla was captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after flying in from Pakistan, and U.S. authorities believe he planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in an American city. U.S. authorities "believe" he planned to do something illegal.
Well that’s the perfect time to arrest a terrorist huh?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: First, the government's contention is that the courts have no say in this. Second, the selection process this country has instituted in its most basic founding document involves proof with "clear and convincing evidence" for pretrial detention and proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to detention after trial. There's also a right to a speedy trial included in that document.
The selection process has been short-circuited in this case. The government's evidence has not been subjected to the rigorous standards needed to protect the rights of the accused.
I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement. The President is held more accountable to his actions than any judge or jury. Our system of representative government only works if you have a certain amount of faith in the people we have elected. I just happen to have a little more faith than some of you.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Why are you surprised that we have "so much faith in out criminal justice system" when you have far more faith in a single man
Michael Jackson.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: 1. How do you get we sent him back to Syria. He wasn't coming from Syria, he was coming from Tunsnia. They are two different countries. so we didn't "send him back to where he came from."
Sorry. I made a mistake. This could have been handled better by the US as far as I can tell. I wonder why we didn’t just keep him here and question him? And I’ll concede that Syria may have actually tortured him if we had asked. Do you think we asked for that? If so what makes you believe that?
I am finding this a fascinating discussion. I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters. You’re just ‘protectors of liberty’ who think that we can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing anything. I wish that were true. And while the drama that comes with believing in conspiracy theories can be very delicious, I just can’t buy most of them. Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days. Ironic that a tool developed by the US military is the very medium that allows all of us to expose, or simply discuss what the hell this collective group of idiots do on a daily basis.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days."
No, they're not. They're pointed at a lot more, but I don't see a lot of accountability.
Yes, the courts have problems. But our Constitution was designed at some pains to make sure that no one person or body of people could call all the shots. When all the decisions are made by one person it's not democracy. It's dictatorship. Even were the president a man I trusted utterly, I would not want him to have that kind of power.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Michael Brown would disagree I think.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You’re just ‘protectors of liberty’ who think that we can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing anything.
Do you think the "War on Terror" can be won?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement.
Yeah, I guess some of us trust the work of Jefferson and Madison et al. a bit more than GW Bush.
quote:I am finding this a fascinating discussion. I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters.
I'd like to point out that the opponents of a Republican administration have just been accurately characterized as "anti-government." Man alive. The Bush presidency really does mark a sea change in American conservatism.
quote:Government officials have never been held more accountable than they are these days.
Is this a joke??? Padilla was taken into custody on May 8, 2002. This fact was kept secret until Ashcroft announced it on June 10, more than a month afterwards and already long past the maximum limit of one week that people can be held without charge according to the US Code.
Now that's accountability.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well that’s the perfect time to arrest a terrorist huh?
When there is probable cause to do so. See the fourth amendment.
quote:I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. I believe this is our main point of disagreement. The President is held more accountable to his actions than any judge or jury. Our system of representative government only works if you have a certain amount of faith in the people we have elected. I just happen to have a little more faith than some of you.
That's fine. If you think this, then get 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. Until then, the words of the Constitution are pretty darn clear on the subject.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I believe Syria tortured him at our request because:
- He was held in a Syrian prison for over a year. This is not under dispute, it is a proven fact.
- The US sent him there. Also, not under dispute, we've admitted it.
- He said he was tortured while there. . . this one, I'll admit, you'd have to take his word for. I don't know that there's any way to prove it or not, although I haven't read through every article in that timeline. And a London based group, the Syrian Human Rights Committee, reported that he was being beaten and tortured. But for the sake of the arguement, let's go with "if he was tortured in Syria it was probably at our request" as opposed to "he was probably tortured in Syria at out request."
- Syria had no reason to arrest him, except that we asked them to.
- With no reason to arrest him, Syria certainly had no reason to torture him. . . unless we asked them to.
- If there was reasonable cause to believe he may be engaging in terrorist activites, why was he released? We've shown, with Padilla, that we are willing to hold someone indefinitely. Unless someone realized that they made a mistake, I think he would still be rotting in jail somewhere. In my opinion, it's a lot more likely that they realized this through repeated torture and questioning over more than a year and finding out that he really was who he said he was and didn't know anything than they just let him sit there for a year and then decided to let him go.
If you accept that it's okay to detain someone without charging or trying them, you've still got to get hung up on that point. . . why did they just let him go? Unless they were convinced that he wasn't a threat. How could they be convinced that he wasn't a threat? Well, they're a country is known to torture prisoners.
That's a summary of why I believe it's more likely than not that he was tortured in Syria at our request.
----
Thank you for being open-minded in this discussion. Your admission that we didn't handle this case well and that there is a possiblity that Maher Arar was tortured at our request is more than I expected when I started this conversation. I fully expected to be tilting at windmills.
Now, on a different matter. . . I don't think we can win the war against terrorism without sacrificing anything. I just have different ideas from you about what sacrifices are acceptable, and what sacrifices would actually do some good. I think that in the long run the sacrifice of our Consitution would do more harm than good.
And I don't think we can actually win the war on terrorism through conventional warfare. When the government was talking about the "hearts and minds" campaign, I believe we need to be waging that campaign on the entire world, by being less arrogant, less bullying, less selfish. We need to stop unilaterally breaking our own treaties with other countries, and stop infringing on other countries' sovereignty. And I'm not talking about Iraq.
Yes, as long as we're the richest, most privileged country in the world there will be those who look at us with envy and dislike. But not enough to be willing to kill themselves to strike a small blow to us. The terroristic attacks on this country cannot be justified by anything. But they can be understood, I think, better than we're doing now. I'm not saying I understand them well enough to explain them. I don't. But I think I understand well enough to believe that going blundering about killing people is just going to make all this worse in the long run.
So let's sacrifice our cheap oil prices and comply with the Kyoto treaty, for a start. Let's sacrifice a little machismo and reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile to a point where we can only distroy the entire world three or four times over. Let's sacrifice putting out own interests over those of citizens of other nations and stop propping up dictators in banana republics, particularlly those with records of human rights abuses. Let's sacrifice a little pride and try to understand why others feel as strongly towards us as they do. . . and from there, let's learn what other sacrifices we can make to make the world a better place for everyone. I believe that will lead to it being a safer place for us. And even if it didn't. . . it's the right thing to do.
I think that's what it comes down to for me. I don't want my government to do anything I would not be willing to personally do myself. If I thought it was necessary, I would kill to protect myself and my loved ones, so I'm not saying we need to dismantle the military or anything like that. But I do think we need to be upfront about what we're doing and why. And if we swear to uphold a set of laws -- such as the Constitution -- we need to do that, not try to find loopholes and exceptions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Dag, you're my hero.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I’m keep telling myself you guys aren’t foaming-at-the-mouth anti-government Bush haters.
A few minutes reading on this board would make it clear that at least two of the people opposing you in this are most certainly not Bush haters.
quote:You’re just ‘protectors of liberty’ who think that we can win the war on terrorism without sacrificing anything.
I happen to be someone who believes quite strongly in our criminal justice system - who believes it can work to protect people while also safeguarding liberty and procedural protections.
As to "sacrifice," I note that YOU aren't sacrificing anything. You are expecting Mr. Padilla to sacrifice something: the very rights and protections you would desperately want if you were accused of something you didn't do.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I always wonder about people who think it's so terribly unfair that criminals get off because the police didn't read them their Miranda rights, why they think that's a mere technicality? And why should it be so terribly hard for police to simply remember to do that? I mean what? Are they just forgetting? It slips their minds? Why? Are the police so incompetant that they can't follow their own rules? If so, shouldn't we be retraining them or firing people and hiring others who can remember to obey the law? It's just not that hard!
And basic constitutional rights are not a technicality!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Two things:
1.) A person does not "get off" because of failure to read them Miranda rights. The person's statements are excluded based on the assumption that they are involuntary. Miranda is a prophylactic measure to protect the right against self-incrimination.
If the exclusion of the statement is enough for the person to get off, it means the police didn't have enough evidence prior to taking the suspect into custody to convict. (Note: this doesn't mean an arrest is improper.)
2.) It's more difficult than it seems at first blush to figure out when Miranda applies. Sure, when someone is arrested, it's clear the warning should be read. But there are many situations short of arrest where Miranda applies, and the line is fuzzy.
I worked on a couple dozen Miranda motions two summers ago, and all of them involved situations where the suspect was not under arrest. It's very judge-specific and I don't blame the police at all in those situations.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What can we do to reverse this horrible business that's been going on in our country since 9/11/2001? It seems the cure for terrorism is worse than the disease. I want to know specific things I need to do to make it better. I voted against Bush both times.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
you know if a young teenager can build a nuclear reactor in his own backyard how hard can it be to construct a dirty bomb and iridiate the saudi oil fields? Like c'mon now, seems like to me that our "enememies" aren't trying hard enough.
Next the "War on Terror" can't be won any more then you could win a war on drugs, remember that you can't make an airport completely safe and even if you do the terrorists will just simply bomb other places that are crowded: porn shops, crack houses, titty bards and gang bangs, you know entertainment venues. You have to be realistic about terrorism remember that certain groups of people and I mean certain groups: Muslim fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists and just plain guys from Montana are going to make things in your country veeeery interesting for a long long time to come, angry men in combat fatgues talking to god on a two way radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are going to provide you country with a great deal of entertainment. And there will be nothing you can do to stop it. The best you could possible hope for is that the war petters out and everyone forgets about it. Either that or one or two big cities go KA-BOOM!
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
Well...
WHO CAN I COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS TO???
My congressmen? Representative?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Congressman and Senator.
A law would probably stop this, although there's some potential that it would be deemed within the sole purview of the executive.
But, if Congress were to come out unequivocally against this in a veto-proof fashion, it would likely end it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Don't forget that you have two Senators! Send the letter to both of them!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, there was an article in today's Globe and Mail about the detentions you mentioned earlier in the thread. Notably:
quote:Mr. Norris is trying to poke holes in CSIS's credibility and prove that its targets are treated in highly different ways depending on whether they are citizens or non-citizens.
He argues that while Mr. El Maati was apparently a target of security agencies, his Canadian citizenship insulated him from the security-certificate procedure. The procedure, which can be used only to jail non-citizens, uses the low threshold of "probable grounds" to identify terrorists.
While the Criminal Code can be used to prosecute Canadians for terrorism, such prosecutions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence heard in open court -- unlike security certificate cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Canadian protections are worded very similarly to ours. At least you guys seem to be reading your Charter.
When Scalia and Stevens agree that the Constitution means a particular thing, the odds are very good they are right.
What were the other justices thinking?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don’t trust the court system to protect us as much as I trust a US President when it comes to protecting us from terrorism.
Wow. It's rare to find someone who's openly a fascist nowadays. I think I know only three other people who'd admit to it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
One of my concerns about the ATA and security certificate stuff is that permanent residents are not afforded any of the protections that citizens are (which is why security certificate detentions are possible). The Charter of Rights and Freedoms distinguishes between "everyone" and "every citizen of Canada," but the right "not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned" is an "everyone" right (section 9).
In my letter to the Prime Minister, I said that while the measures we've taken may not violate the letter of the Charter, they most certainly violate its spirit. I'm going to mail the letter to his office and to The Globe and Mail tomorrow.
------------
It amuses me slightly that the first sentence of the Charter is "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
It's true, of course, because of the whole Queen/Church thing. But still. It's interesting how religion's effects on the political sphere are different in Canada and America given that America has explicit and total separation of church and state while Canada does not.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
In some ways, twink, it's like a mission statement: if you want to get a quick peek at what is not being done by an institution, check out the mission statement. Often she much protesteth.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms shouldn't be like that. The Charter should be representative of exactly how we live. I mean... it's the Charter.
And what about "peace, order, and good government," then? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know. I hear you.
It's pretty confusing and troubling all around.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've been disillusioned about my country in a number of ways over the last couple of years. I don't like it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I too would trust President Bush more than the court system to protect Americans from terrorism.
Then again, that's hardly the only thing I want out of a president.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I trust the court system's checks on the actions of the rest of the government more than President Bush to protect Americans, period.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it came down to small arms combat on the Mall, nine people on the Supreme Court -- even if they're elderly -- could probably take out more terrorists than one middle-aged president. Unless he had a headband.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And don't forget that this would set a precedent for all future Presidents.
Those that would trust President Bush, would you have trusted President Clinton? How about Carter? Nixon? JFK? Taft? Harding? even Grant? These are all Presidents that were considered very untrustworthy at one point in their careers, or since.
Remember the Courts have a series of checks and balances to fix any errors that happen. Even if you trust completely the President, his actions go down a chain of bearocratic inefficancies until it reaches the FBI agent in the street.
You trust that President Bush would not allow or condone the tortures and disgusting practices that occured in Abu Graib. Good. But they happened anyway. Mistakes and disturbing practices could result from this practice when it descends to the level of weakest link in the chain of command.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And don't forget that this would set a precedent for all future Presidents.
For a second there, I thought you were talking about the headband thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I too would trust President Bush more than the court system to protect Americans from terrorism.
But that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? I mean it isn't the job of the court system to protect us from terrorism. I'd hope that this could be said of anyone who would be president.
In this specific case, I think New Orleans shows what happens when you trust President Bush to protect you. The response and recovery parts of his Homeland Security Department have been tested and found extremely lacking. The President and his administration seemed unconcerned.
I see no reason to think that the prevention side of the Homeland Security is doing any better. I've already posted on one reason why I think he can't be trusted to keep us protected.
President Bush's administration has pretty consistently shown that they are not people you can trust without some serious oversight. I fear that the strongest response they're going to have in the face of a terrorist attack is a bunch of excuses as to why it's not their fault that it happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, well Mr. Squicky I thought that was implied in what I said. Just as the President has jobs aside from protecting us from terrorism, so does the court system...and you're right, the court system's job arguably isn't to protect us from terrorism.
I think you're both wrong about New Orleans and also leaving a lot unmentioned, but that's a different discussion. At any rate, my post wasn't exactly a post expressing confidence in or satisfaction with the Bush Administration.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The president's job is to devise initiatives, encourage follow-through, and raise public awareness of anti-terrorism measures. The legislation's job is to pass bills and create laws to enforce those initiatives. The judicial branch's job is to judge and punish people caught as a result of those initiatives.
Simplistic as heck, but there are clearly defined job descriptions and divisions of responsibility. In this administration, everything seems to be falling under the executive branch and favored members of the legislative branch. I simply can't see this as good.
I keep thinking of Heinlein's Future History, that described a period of craziness and irresponsibility in America that led to an elected religious tyranny.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: In this specific case, I think New Orleans shows what happens when you trust President Bush to protect you. The response and recovery parts of his Homeland Security Department have been tested and found extremely lacking. The President and his administration seemed unconcerned.
You may want to do some research and find out who setup Homeland Security, who recommended it, who was against it, who wrote the policies for the new Dept before you start making these kinds of accusations. You might also look into LA Homeland Security dept and see what actions they took, or didn't take, or prevented from happening. Not that you still won't blame Bush for everything, but things are not the way you make the seem.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So we're clear then DK, you are agreeing that the American people can't trust President Bush to keep them safe (edit: and the response to New Orleans is the response we can expect to a terrorist attack), yes?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have written to my congresswoman and my senators about this matter. I also think that letters to the editors of newspapers are in order since this came out late Friday and thus has gotten very little media attention.
MoralDK: Are you sure you actually want a "president"? Perhaps a king, kaiser, or emperor might be more of what you are looking for. They aren't hampered by courts, congress or the constitution.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Simplistic as heck, but there are clearly defined job descriptions and divisions of responsibility. In this administration, everything seems to be falling under the executive branch and favored members of the legislative branch. I simply can't see this as good.
I agree. It really bothers me how as the decades go on, the federal government keeps grabbing more and more power, and the executive branch of the federal government keeps grabbing more and more of that power.
Even if I thought that everything that GWB did with that power was 100% correct, it would still be a horrible idea. No matter what your political persuasion is, eventually you're going to have a president you hate using/abusing that power.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
No. I am saying that it was not President Bush's idea to set up Homeland Security. He was against it. That idea came from the 9/11 Commission. The policies were set forth by Congress. The biggest failures came not from his Homeland Security dept, as you put it, it came from LA Homeland Security dept, the Governor, and Mayor. NO was a complete disaster at the local and state levels. Do a little reading and you can find this out for yourself. Why didn't NO follow it's own evacuation plan? They have one, a pretty reasonable one and it was never implemented. Why? Is that Bush's fault too? Why did the Governor wait so long to tell people to evacuate? Bush urged her to do so, yet she waited? Why did she withhold food and water from the evacuees at the Superdome? I would agree that the corrupt politicians in NO cannot keep NO safe in any kind of crisis
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But, all questions of fault (of which there's plenty of on all levels) aside, what you are saying is that the President is unable to keep people safe and that this type of severely deficient response is likely in the event of a terrorist attack.
There's this enormous difference between responsibility and blame and people just don't seem to get it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Indeed there is MrSquicky. We do get that you want to blame Bush for this when most of the blame is properly placed at lower levels of government
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
DK, we aren't talking about NO or Homeland Security (at least I'm not). There were problems and screwups all up and down the ladder on that one, from the people who could leave and didn't to the mayor and governor and the state and federal FEMAs and Congress and the president, and I've talked about that at length elsewhere.
What concerns me here and now is the trend for more and more power to be rested in a single branch of the government without accompanying balances or means of accountability. You don't share my opinion of Mr. Bush and that's fine. So next term say a Democrat wins. Will you still prefer a president with that kind of power?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think the problem is people are screaming that Bush didn't do enough, which implies he needs more power and be able to wield it faster which goes against the same people yelling he has too much power. I have the same concerns as you, Chris, which is why I want the honest answers as to who did or did not do what they were supposed to. Blaming Bush for not acting quickly enough means that Bush should have been able to declare the immediate evacuation of the whole region and use the military to do it, which is a terrible idea! It was the local and state's responsibility to get the people out of harm's way and if they couldn't do it using all of their resources, then ask the federal level for assistance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, I don't think you do get it. The President and his administration has explicitly and repeatedly made the claims that they can and will keep people safe. However, their assumption of this responsibility was tested by the New Orleans situation, which has clearly shown that they did not live up to the responsibilty that they've been touting. Which suggests that there is nothing to stop the aftermath of a terrorist attack (the very thing that they've been claiming they were the best for) from being a similar frooforall.
You don't seem to be disputing this, just saying that it's not their fault, which is exactly the response that I said I'm afraid that is the best they have.
Responsibility is primarily about acting before something occurs to prevent it from happening or at least ameliorating its effects. It is practically infinite and attachs proportionally to power. It is often very nebulous in large part as it pertains at least as much to actions not taken as to actions taken.
My complaint here isn't that the Bush adminstration is to blame (although they clearly are along with a whole bunch of other people) but that they've claimed to assume responsibilty without actually doing a good job of taking on this responsibility and that, because of this, there is no reason to trust that the overall response to something like a terrorist attack is going to be any better than the response to New Orleans.
The people who died preventible deaths or suffered other things that didn't need to happen don't really care who is directly to blame for this. They just didn't want these things to happen. The President both by position and by his own claims bears the responsibility of preventing these thigns from happening but has proved unequal to the task.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think the problem is people are screaming that Bush didn't do enough, which implies he needs more power and be able to wield it faster which goes against the same people yelling he has too much power.
Or perhaps by folding FEMA into a newly-created bureaucratic office and packing that office with his cronies, he crippled the actual function of that office by changing its focus to paramilitary threats.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Right, well, except it wasn't Bush's idea to fold FEMA into the Dept of Homeland Security, that was the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, voted on and approved by Congress. I'm assuming you have data to back up the "packing that office with his cronies". Oh, and Congress is the one who set up the policies that FEMA and Homeland Security operates under, not Bush.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The President both by position and by his own claims bears the responsibility of preventing these thigns from happening but has proved unequal to the task.
So you are saying that the Presidnet should have unlimited power to do anything that he (or she) sees fit to prevent these things from happening? If the President has total responsibility for all levels of handling a crisis, then he must be in absolute charge of all levels. States should have no say in anything that happens, the President will have absolute authority over every aspect of life. We would have to live in a total dictatorship for this to work the way you said. It's like saying if a newly hired custodian at a school commits a terrible act against a child, we blame the Superintendent, and take action against the Superintendent because that office is ultimately responsible while not bothering to look at the school, Human Resources, and other departments and see what action must be taken there to prevent future occurences.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do place the blame for folding FEMA into Homelan Security squarely on Congress. But Bush did in fact place at its head a man with no qualifications for the job other than that he was Bush’s chief of staff when Bush was governor of Texas and his campaign manager when he ran for president. That man, Joseph Allbaugh, hired as his second-in-command someone with even less experience, the currently beleagured Michael Brown. And, when Brown was shown to have serious problems with FEMA response -- and here I'm not talking about NO, I mean the accusations of misuse of relief money paid out after the 2004 hurricanes in Florida -- Bush did nothing. When response was slow and awkward the first week of Katrina's aftermath, Bush publicly praised him.
This is why I bring Mr. Bush's name into it. I am NOT saying the mayor didn't screw up, I am NOT saying the governor didn't screw up. But Mr. Bush also bears some responsibility for FEMA'a actions, and that seems to be the only part of my argument that you want to respond to. If you could somehow get your needle out of the "Attack Against Bush, Must Rebut" groove we might even be able to talk about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is plenty that has gone wrong at all levels of government.
Perhaps our concern here with the Federal government's response is that, as citizens, it is our duty to hold our government accountable. I am not a citizen of Louisiana or Mississippi or a resident of NO - I am sure that the people in those states will do what they need to to correct goverment at the state and municipal level. (At least in Chicago our politicians may be corrupt, but if they fail to get the streets plowed they are looking for a new job.)
But as a citizen of the US it is my duty to pay attention to the Federal Government and to hold it accountable when it fails.
Speaking of which, back to our civil liberties question; donations to the ACLU anyone?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This is why I bring Mr. Bush's name into it. I am NOT saying the mayor didn't screw up, I am NOT saying the governor didn't screw up.
My point in being so repetitive is exactly what you said (although you had a different meaning than what I am assigning to it) people are NOT saying anyone but Bush is to blame. Yes, I know it is being heard now, but after listening to the evening news cycle the predominant opinion is to blame Bush. Which I do blame Bush for putting in the completely wrong person for the head of FEMA, and for not yanking that same person much sooner when things were not happening fast enough
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting kind of tired of this multithread argument that keeps going in circles.
"Everyone keeps solely blaming Bush."
"We're not just blaming Bush. We just think he's partly to blame."
"But everyone keeps blaming Bush."
And it goes on and on and on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm tired of that, too. I'm also tired of the ongoing blame being attributed to Bush specifically and the feds generally for things that are not their responsibility, and the attempts to use "we just think he's partly to blame" as cover for it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I haven't read EVERYTHING in all the threads, but there's a lot of federal responsibility to go around, including things that happened months and years (and even decades) ago and were the responsibility of Congresses and Presidents past and current.
Mixed in there are things that are the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers too.
I don't think there's a person anywhere claiming that this was a single-point failure. More like a giant cluster ____. And the question isn't whether Bush has any blame, or even how much blame he should have.
The question is, really, how can we keep it from happening THIS BAD again. Given that we will eventually have another category 5 hurricane, or a level-9 earth quake, or something that threatens tens of thousands of lives and the economic vitality of the entire nation...WHAT can we do about it?
I, personally think that every state and major city should be rethinking its disaster reaction and evacuation plan.
And, I think the federal government should do several things. Such as:
1) Leave the National Guard in the US at all times. They should spend their time practicing emergency response and working through scenarios. They should not be used to wage war on foreign soil. EVER.
2) Selected government services should be permanently put in the hands of technocrats, not political appointees. Among these key services, it now becomes obvious to me, is disaster relief and planning/coordination.
3) Funding for public works, and the setting of priorities for the Army Corps of Engineers should be taken out of Congress' hands. Period. Close that pork barrel.
4) Tax dollars should be spent with long-range planning in mind, to include specific set-asides for disaster recovery/relief. The money should be held secure against the day it is needed and not "borrowed" to close budget gaps or make it possible to fund foreign adventures. It should be there when it is needed and for no other purpose.
5) Areas that are vital to the US economy should not have complete autonomy in making their disaster response plans. Period. There's just no way that we should allow a NYC, LA, or even a New Orleans to go it alone with respect to planning their response to disasters.
Now, as has been said by kmbboots, few of us engaged in this discussion have any stake in Louisiana personally. We don't get a vote there. But we can and should be looking at how we can affect a change in the areas that we can make a difference: - our towns/cities - our states - our federal government
Anyway, that's my take on it. I've never once knowingly blamed Bush for something that's not even a Federal responsibility. Nor have I blamed him for things that I knew to be the perogative of Congress or some other body. Nor have I blamed him solely for things that are "Presidential" in nature but have unfolded over more than just his term in office.
Since that still leaves a lot of ground where he could be held accountable, I'm pretty comfortable in bringing up his failings.
I'm also comfortable discussing the failings of the state and local officials, and of Congress.
I don't see any reason to blame the press for Bush's problems, though. From what I see, they're doing a pretty good job of reporting the situation. It's an ugly situation and people are always too willing to run ahead of the facts. But I don't see the press in general doing that.
I also dont see too many people here unwilling to back down if they find out that they were wrong to assume that some specific aspect of the current situation wasn't Bush's responsibility.
I think, sadly, what is happening is that people who supported this man are suddenly discovering some of flaws. One of his main flaws is, and always has been, to claim authority and insist that he has not erred and does not need to apologize. Another flaw is his blind devotion to people who do things for him, to the point where he will give them jobs they are not suited for. Alberto Gonzalez was my favorite example until this FEMA guy came along.
I could go on to other flaws I see, but these appear to be the ones that his erstwhile supporters are groking to post-Katarina. And it's losing him a huge amount of that support-base. Not everyone, of course, but a lot. I think what we're seeing is that his "great mandate" was really made up of a lot of folks who were luke-warm to him and just felt like Gore or Kerry were slightly less capable.
The people who truly like Bush and trust him, really, are in the minority. Just as with any President, I suspect.
Sorry for the long post.
I don't get much time on Hatrack these days, but I really wanted to keep my hand in this debate. I find it to be very important and very interesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I also dont see too many people here unwilling to back down if they find out that they were wrong to assume that some specific aspect of the current situation wasn't Bush's responsibility.
No, but they do cast failry general aspersions at people who have repeatedly called for confirmation of accusations before agreeing that Bush is at fault for something specific. "The time to complain is now." Well, no, the time to complain is when accurate information has been obtained.
In another thread we talked about people ignoring horrible things. One of the reasons this happens is that enough hoorible things are reported that aren't true that people feel very safe in doubting horrible things that are truth until presented with extremely credible evidence.
Witness the looting/finding thing. Witness FEMA turning away Red Cross at the Superdome. Witness people mixing Nazi name-calling with reports of reentry rules at refugee centers (incidentally, calling them "detention camps").
quote:Perhaps our concern here with the Federal government's response is that, as citizens, it is our duty to hold our government accountable. I am not a citizen of Louisiana or Mississippi or a resident of NO - I am sure that the people in those states will do what they need to to correct goverment at the state and municipal level. (At least in Chicago our politicians may be corrupt, but if they fail to get the streets plowed they are looking for a new job.)
But as a citizen of the US it is my duty to pay attention to the Federal Government and to hold it accountable when it fails.
One of the reasons for pointing out NOLA and LA failings is that some people consider the allocation of responsibility across local, state, and federal governments to be an important issue. Once a lower level fails an upper level must take up the slack, which means we don't let people starve because NOLA screwed up.
However, in examining what went wrong, even people who can only vote for Federal officials involved in this must examine and focus on the local and state failures in NOLA. We are trying to evaluate a national disaster system. This system includes local and state responsibility. If we are going to suggest changes in the way the Feds respond, we MUST make it clear what the local and state responsibilities are. And this means saying, rigorously, "don't do X, Y, and Z as NOLA and LA did during Katrina."
For all the generalizing going on, for all the protests about people trying to stifle discussion by telling people they should be "helping," I see an awful lot of predismissal of other points of view as simply Bush apologism.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Someone ought to come out and say this: Bush has gotten away with so much that it feels like poetic justice when the public finally gets upset with him for a problem he had relatively little role in.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I disagree that the media has been obsessing on Bush in the NO situation. Witness this column in the NY Times, another in a long list of non-Bush complaints: Katrina's Message on the Corps
"But there is another question worth asking: has the Army Corps made wise use of the money it has? Louisiana has received about $1.9 billion over the past four years for corps civil works projects, more than any other state. Although much of this has been spent to protect New Orleans, a lot has also been spent on unrelated water projects - a new and unnecessary lock in the New Orleans Industrial Canal, for instance, and dredging little-used waterways like the Red River - mainly to serve the barge industry and other commercial interests."
I've seen reports and columns like this every day since the disaster. Personally, I suspect that had Bush dropped his schedule and vacation the day the storm hit and immediately appeared somewhere -- anywhere -- asking Americans to pull together, support the Red Cross, and help where we could, he wouldn't have gotten nearly the amount of criticism he did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know that threads tend to meander and take on their own direction, but I hope we are not forgetting the whole "U.S. can hold detainees indefinitely" issue.
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Cool huh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Speaking at a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Bush said, "I want to know what went right and what went wrong. I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government to be able to answer that very question that you asked."
Man. What a jerk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because of course, there were no failings at the state and local level, and it isn't important to be able to correct any failings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which (or, rather, its inverse) is not even remotely close to what he said, and I suspect nothing like what he meant.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government
The inability of the three forms of govt. (local, state, federal) to cooperate and work together seems to be at the core of many of the problems that took place in the aftermath of the hurricane hitting, though - wouldn't you agree?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, not necessarily.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* If you start off with the assumption that this is largely President Bush's fault, then there isn't much to talk about. I believe lots of people-from him on down-were at serious fault of negligence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And incidentally whether or not that's close to what he said is a matter of interpretation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So you are saying that the Presidnet should have unlimited power to do anything that he (or she) sees fit to prevent these things from happening? If the President has total responsibility for all levels of handling a crisis, then he must be in absolute charge of all levels. States should have no say in anything that happens, the President will have absolute authority over every aspect of life. We would have to live in a total dictatorship for this to work the way you said. It's like saying if a newly hired custodian at a school commits a terrible act against a child, we blame the Superintendent, and take action against the Superintendent because that office is ultimately responsible while not bothering to look at the school, Human Resources, and other departments and see what action must be taken there to prevent future occurences.
I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that the President has total responsibility or that the problems here were because he didn't have enough power. I know my complaints center around the poor use that the President put to the considerable power he does have.
The errors in execution were numerous and it will obviously take some investigation to figure out who exactly screwed which pooch. There are some clear federal foulups, like the inability to establish communications for nearly 5 days after the hurricane hit.
However, what I'm making an issue of is not problems in execution but rather the general lack of planning and preparedness on a federal level. The federal Department of Homeland Security was not at all prepared to handle something like this. And yet, having it prepared is both well within the President's powers and was an explicit promise he made to the American people. Many of the grave flaws in the response here were in communication and coordination, whcih fall directly into the responsiblities of DHS and FEMA. The President had everything he needed to ensure that these agencies were ready for their roles here.
Or maybe you disagree. What extra powers did the President need to appoint someone comptetent to the head of FEMA? What extra powers did he need to have DHS and FEMA develop working relationships and plans with the various local authorities in potential trouble spots? How about having them train enough to prepared for such things as setting up communication systems in a devestated area or coordinating federal and state and city resources?
These are exactly the same things we're going to need in the event of a terrorist attack. But they are obviously not there now. It makes me wonder, other than invading two countries, one involved, one not, and curtailing civil rights, what exactly the Bush administration has been doing to deal with terrorist threats? What are their plans and what have their actions been? Because it's clear the readiness and preparedness they showed in response to New Orleans were greatly deficient.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots,
quote:I know that threads tend to meander and take on their own direction, but I hope we are not forgetting the whole "U.S. can hold detainees indefinitely" issue.
I sort of started this digression and I felt similarly. I usually don't like it when threads drift so much. Here, I don't know, maybe I just think it's different because I'm doing it, but from ym perspective, the original topic was a bit of a dead issue. I don't think anyone here is for it. I had little to say about it except "Man, that's just blatantly unconstitutional and just plain wrong."
I mean, I sent out the e-mails to my various representatives expressing my displeasure and that's something that everyone should do, but I don't know what else to say.
[ September 13, 2005, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, MrS. I guess I'm just a bit panicked that I've hardly heard anything about this in the news or even from other people. If not for the original post I wouldn't have known about it. And I try to keep pretty informed. This seems to me to be a huge thing, so I keep trying to make some noise. Am I missing something and this is not as big a deal as I think?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: No, but they do cast failry general aspersions at people who have repeatedly called for confirmation of accusations before agreeing that Bush is at fault for something specific. "The time to complain is now." Well, no, the time to complain is when accurate information has been obtained.
From the links you post that you seem to believe are 'definitive' to refute things that are not, that information seems to be that which places the blame only on local or state.
Of course, I guess you don't have to make sure that stuff is accurate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it's a pretty big deal, I think, although it'll be a much bigger when it hits the Supreme Court. I imagine that it will get much wider coverage then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:From the links you post that you seem to believe are 'definitive' to refute things that are not, that information seems to be that which places the blame only on local or state.
Of course, I guess you don't have to make sure that stuff is accurate.
I'm sure you can post an example there, Storm.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It still, to a certain degree, falls down to one simple question in light of the entire Hurricane Katrina fiasco:
After 9/11 and a national awareness of the need for coordinated emergency response, are we better protected and prepared four years later than we were then?
I think Louisiana and Mississippi point to the glaring reality that we are far from capable in responding quickly to catastrophic incidents. We are slower than we have been in decades.
Compare the relief efforts after Hurricanes Andrew and Hugo. Compare the relief efforts after the San Francisco earthquake a decade ago. Compare this to the response on 9/11 itself.
We are worse off after being promised that we would be more capable. When the sh*t went down, we found those in need trapped behind a logjam of non-cooperation and timidity that cost the lives of our friends and relatives.
There's plenty of blame to go around, from the top on down.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sorry to further derail this thread, but I have to ask MoralDK why this was particularly addressed to me?
quote:@ Bob_Scopatz
Bush: 'I take responsibility'
Cool huh?
Also, since the following are true: 1) He should've done this in the first place, and,
2) He qualified his "responsibility" by pointing to "all levels of government."
I also think it's worth asking what is so cool about the President firmly taking responsibility for the things he's responsible for?
Should I consider this particulary praise-worthy? It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when we have to give our President positive reinforcement just for doing his job.
So, no, it's not "cool." It's more like "too little, too late" if what he was trying to do is show leadership. Which is really what I think a lot of his recently chagrined supporters were hoping for.
When I take a step back, I do have to wonder whether this particular move is anything but a preview of his strategy to distance his Administration from this disaster.
And while I've been careful (despite what you may think) to blame him only for the stuff that is proveably his fault, I have to wonder whether this cavil is going to really help him with his usual supporters. It doesn't show leadership. It shows that he is concerned about blame as much as the country is. With his statement he has legitimized the blame game more than any 10 press columnists ever could have.
That, IMHO, is the stupidest thing he could've done. Because, eventually, some of the problems are going to come home to roost and people in the general public aren't going to care which branch of government screwed up as much as they are going to care that GOVERNMENT screwed up. And, unfair or not, since it happened on his watch, he's going to get tagged for it.
To some extent, since he's been the poster boy for irresponsible leadership all along, he deserves some of that back-splash.
But, not all of it.
And, had he simply stepped up and said "I'm not happy with how this has gone so far, and I'm going to make sure it doesn't happen again," I might have actually revised my opinion of him upward by a bit (just as I did the day that elections were successfully held in Iraq). But he hasn't done that yet and I don't think he has it in him. Because he has spent a lifetime learning how to duck his responsibilities. From his first DUI, to his "military" service, to his role in misinterpreting intelligence data in order to support his quest for war. Maybe his statement regarding Katrina is an indication of a refreshing change in the man -- that of learning to accept the responsibility he already has. That's a start anyway. But it's not "cool."
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
A couple of points which seem to be ignored:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants can be held indefinitely, but that they must be given a meaningful opportunity before a neutral decisionmaker to contest that designation.
Therefore, U.S. citizens can't be held indefinitely just because the President designates them as enemy combatants. They can challenge that designation in court. The court would then make the determination as to whether they really are enemy combatants. (You'll notice that Padilla was not challenging the designation. It would be pointless for him to do so, because he clearly was working for al-Queda.)
2. Padilla's detention as an enemy combatant is only possible while the U.S. is at war specifically with al-Queda, not just the general "War on Terror." So, if al-Queda were defeated militarily, Padilla could no longer be detained as an enemy combatant. Assuming he were not charged with war crimes or treason at that time, he would be freed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Thanks Eric. This is the first time I've ever had anyone tell me there were limits to what Enemy Combatant status or the War we are waging. That is better than the totally unlimited description we had before.
Of course, while he can challenge that designation in court, seeing that his is locked up without access to a lawyer or any communications to the outside world, how he goes about making that challenge is a bit difficult. Telepathy?
And since al-Queda has no official military, we have defeated them militarilly, so I guess the war is over? Or will it take the death of all Al-Queda members or them signing a peace treaty with the US to end this war?
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Sorry Bob, I should have quoted you.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: One of his main flaws is, and always has been, to claim authority and insist that he has not erred and does not need to apologize.
~30 minutes later he pretty much did what you said he never does.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:Of course, while he can challenge that designation in court, seeing that his is locked up without access to a lawyer or any communications to the outside world, how he goes about making that challenge is a bit difficult. Telepathy?
If he were making such a challenge -- which you'll notice he has not -- then under the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision, he would be entitled to a fair hearing on that matter, which would include representation by counsel.
Why has he not challenged his status an an enemy combatant? Because it would be pointless. Unless this is a very bad case of mistaken identity -- which not even his supporters are claiming -- he trained with al-Queda and fought for them in Afghanistan.
Of course, his supporters like to make it seem as if this could happen to just about anyone. From the Washington Post article: "Opponents have warned that if not constrained by the courts, Padilla's detention could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone who, for example, checks out what the government considers the wrong kind of reading materials from the library."
I think anyone who seriously believes that after a fair hearing, the courts are going to uphold enemy combatant status for anyone solely on the basis of what books they checked out of the library, is insane.
Detention of enemy combatants isn't about punishment; it's about preventing them from rejoining combat. If World War II were still going on, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that we must release POWs we were detaining because we've been holding them indefinitely.
quote:And since al-Queda has no official military, we have defeated them militarilly, so I guess the war is over?
In case you haven't been paying attention, al-Queda is still fighting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Yes, in Iraq. Whether or not al-Queda was in Iraq before we invaded, they are certainly there now.)
Posted by MoralDK (Member # 8395) on :
Thanks Eric. That brings down the temperature down in this thread.
was getting kinda hot Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So, if al-Queda were defeated militarily, Padilla could no longer be detained as an enemy combatant. Assuming he were not charged with war crimes or treason at that time, he would be freed.
Well, that means all we have to do is just march into Al Qaeda's capitol, Alqaedaville, plant the flag, and we're good. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MoralDK...I transferred my take on this to the other thread (on Bush takes Responsibility), but I note that someone already posted how this was not an apology, so my statement still stands. I'll be happy to discuss that "over there" in order to avoid further derailment of this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:From the links you post that you seem to believe are 'definitive' to refute things that are not, that information seems to be that which places the blame only on local or state.
Of course, I guess you don't have to make sure that stuff is accurate.
I'm sure you can post an example there, Storm.
So that'd be "No," then.
I didn't think so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for the clarification, Eric. It is very helpful. May I ask for some more? I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this.
What, exactly, is a, "meaningful opportunity before a neutral decisionmaker"? Is this a military tribunal? After the civil war (in ex parte Milligan) the courts decided that,where the civil courts and government remained open and operational, military rule could not supersede them. Our courts are operational so why, if the evidence is so clear, (and I believe that it is) don't we just charge him?
And the problem with using the "law of war" precedent of ex parte Quirin is that unlike the declared war with Germany during WWII, the "war" on Al-Qaeda is ill-defined and could go on forever.
When we start allow special powers to governements, we need to be very, very, definate and specific about the limits of those powers. "Stretchy" and vague definitions allow the government to start eating away at the contitution.
I must say that the Hamdi case really bothers me. Anything that erodes the concept of Habeas Corpus strikes me as contrary to the ideals of democracy.
And "we the people" need to really pay attention when it happens.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: If he were making such a challenge -- which you'll notice he has not -- then under the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision, he would be entitled to a fair hearing on that matter, which would include representation by counsel.
Did I miss something? How do we know he wouldn't want to make such a challenge if he could, but he can't since he is neither a lawyer nor given access to one? He has not spoken to the press about his guilt, but we have heard about it from only those people who have him locked up.
The Canadian of Syrian descent who was locked up and shipped to Syria to be tortured tried several times to get to court to prove his innocence and was stopped. So the argument that it can't happen breaks down in the light that things like this have happened.
Do you know who makes the decision to classify someone "Enemy Combatant"? They only answer I've ever heard was, "the Government", but the government is a group of people. Someone must have that authority. Whom, and by what legally binding limits is that decision made?
As far as the war on Al-Queda, has anyone come out with what would be required to end that war? Is it the extermination of all Al-Queda members? Is it their written agreement not to attack the US anymore? Is it locking them all up, but then if we do we have won the war, so they can go free.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:What, exactly, is a, "meaningful opportunity before a neutral decisionmaker"? Is this a military tribunal? After the civil war (in ex parte Milligan) the courts decided that,where the civil courts and government remained open and operational, military rule could not supersede them.
The Supreme Court's decision left open the possibility that a properly composed military tribunal authorized by Congress would be sufficient. However, since Congress has not done so, the civilian courts would be the mechanism for such hearings.
quote:Our courts are operational so why, if the evidence is so clear, (and I believe that it is) don't we just charge him?
I don't know for sure, but here's some possible reasons:
1. A trial is public. Evidence presented at trial might publicly reveal information about our intelligence-gathering.
2. We don't want him getting out while the war is still ongoing. (You might say, but the crimes Padilla is charged with would put him away for decades, and that should be enough. In this case, that might be true. But what about an enemy combatant who is captured, but whose only crime is a misdemeanor? Should he be charged, sentenced, and then let go to fight against us again? So, as a matter of policy, it makes sense as a general rule to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, rather than try them -- except in death penalty cases.)
3. Some people are so rabidly anti-Bush that if they got on Padilla's jury, they'd vote to free him just to spite Bush.
quote:Did I miss something? How do we know he wouldn't want to make such a challenge if he could, but he can't since he is neither a lawyer nor given access to one?
Well, if that's true, how do the lawyers who filed this case on Padilla's behalf know he wants to be charged or set free? Maybe he prefers being detained as an enemy combatant, so he could go free when the war is over.
OK, that's probably nonsense. But it does show that even without access to a lawyer, if his supporters decided that he needed a hearing to determine whether he really was an enemy combatant, they could file for one on his behalf. Why haven't they done so? Because they know it's a loser -- not just in the courtroom, but in public opinion.
quote:Do you know who makes the decision to classify someone "Enemy Combatant"?
In the case of Padilla, it was done through an order signed by President Bush. The order is reproduced in the court decision.
Look, I'm no expert on these matters. I'm just someone who reads a lot and bothers to actually look at the court opinions instead of just what people with agendas say about them. Opponents of Padilla's detention like to claim it could happen to anyone. ("If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be." --http://www.chargepadilla.org) But the fact is that it's not being done to random citizens, and it's not being done to Bush's political opponents, either. It's been done to Americans who actually took up arms with our enemies and fought against us. If they chose to become enemy combatants, then they deserve to be treated like enemy combatants.
I have yet to see anyone who opposes Padilla's detention explain exactly what should be done with enemy combatants if they cannot be detained until the end of hostilities. Charge them? If they have not committed war crimes or normal crimes, there's nothing to charge them with. So what would you do?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:3. Some people are so rabidly anti-Bush that if they got on Padilla's jury, they'd vote to free him just to spite Bush.
I suppose the government lawyers aren't smart enough to get "rabidly anti-bush" jurors kicked out of the jury pool.
You crack me up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What actions define an "enemy combatant"? Wouldn't those actions be criminal? Surely, taking up arms and fighting against us would be against the law. Even helping someone else to do so whould at least be conspiracy. And heck - even trespassing could get you in jail for up to a year
Only the first of your reasons against a public trial makes sense. I mean, honestly, you're going to have a whole jury who is so rabidly anti-Bush that they would ignore the evidence and let this guy go kill people? Really? I spend a lot of time with activists and I find this pretty hard to imagine.
I don't know anyone who wants this guy free to roam, but I know a lot of folks who want to be sure our civil rights are protected.
I do not feel safe with just the "it's not being done to random citizens" argument. These are matters of principle and law. Just because we don't need a particular protection at the moment doesn't mean we can just disregard it. And how do we know who it's being done to? When someone is declared an enemy combatent and detained is this a matter of public record? Are we depending on the press or their friends and family (assuming they have any)? What legal mechanism is in place to make sure?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But the fact is that it's not being done to random citizens, and it's not being done to Bush's political opponents, either.
What is to PREVENT this from being done?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the Hamdi decision provides safeguards which, if followed, would stop it from happening to random citizens or political opponents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cool. Mind elaborating? Thanks for the info.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.
This footnote defines the scope of the decision:
quote:For purposes of Padilla’s summary judgment motion, the parties have stipulated to the facts as set forth by the government. J.A. 30-31. It is only on these facts that we consider whether the President has the authority to detain Padilla.
In other words, the decision says if these facts are true, then the detention is legal. This means the actual process isn’t being examined by this court at all. I believe this is because this is an appeal of a summary judgment motion, in which the facts are taken in the best light for the party moved against (the government in this case). In other words, there is still some element of review left which will be subject to the rules of Hamdi.
Here we see the court specifically address the distinction:
quote:Padilla also argues that the locus of capture should be legally relevant to the scope of the AUMF’s authorization because there is a higher probability of an erroneous determination that one is an enemy combatant when the seizure occurs on American soil. It is far from clear that this is actually the case. In any event, Padilla’s argument confuses the scope of the President’s power to detain enemy combatants under the AUMF with the process for establishing that a detainee is in fact an enemy combatant. Hamdi itself provides process to guard against the erroneous detention of non-enemy combatants.
In other words, this decision is being made in the context of Hamdi as interpreted by Judge Luttig. His argument is fairly convincing within that context.
This is why I did not see Hamdi as a good decision, even though it was celebrated by some analysts as protecting rights.
To sum up even more, Hamdi states that 1.) Citizens may be detained if they are enemy combatants and 2.) Citizens must be given a chance in court to show challenge their designation as enemy combatants.
The second part is where the due process protections come in.
My whole problem with this is that we have a nice, bright line rule: citizens cannot be detained in the U.S. without being charged, tried, and covicted of a crime, although they may be detained during the trial and appeals.
We have 200 years of jurisprudence carefully defining many aspects of this right to due process. Now, suddenly, we need to come up with something entirely new, for no good reason.
If we can prove he did the things he's accused of, he should be charged and convicted. If those things aren't crimes, the loopholes in the law should be fixed to make them crimes (although this won't apply to his past actions).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Dagonee, that is very helpful. I hate that nice, bright line getting all mucked up!
[ September 14, 2005, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:What actions define an "enemy combatant"? Wouldn't those actions be criminal? Surely, taking up arms and fighting against us would be against the law.
Fighting in a war is not a crime, as long as you follow the rules of war.
Understanding that concept is the key to understanding the rules about detention of enemy combatants.
German soldiers who fought against us in WWII were not committing a crime. That's why we didn't punish ordinary German soldiers for murder if they killed our soldiers. We could imprison them as enemy combatants, but that was only for the duration of the war. The detention is not punishment for their fighting against us; it is merely a way of keeping them from rejoining the fight.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But we didn't imprision them as "enemy combatants". We imprisioned them as "Prisoners of War", which is an internationally recognized legal designation that carries with it rights of those imprisioned.
The "enemy combatant" is a designation the Bush Administration made up because it didn't want to/couldn't classify these people either as crimials or as POWs. And you know what, I don't have a problem with there being a new designation created to meet the needs of a new reality where the old definitions aren't working.
However, what I do have a problem with is this designation being a matter of the executive branch being able to lock people away with those people having no recourse and without oversight or any other reason then the administration says so. I also have a problem with them acting in a blatantly unconstitutional manner in order to do so.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:My whole problem with this is that we have a nice, bright line rule: citizens cannot be detained in the U.S. without being charged, tried, and covicted of a crime, although they may be detained during the trial and appeals.
Has this rule really only applied to US citizens in the past? The 5th Amendment certainly says that "No person" can be denied due process, not just "No citizen."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Eric, and Dag, thanks for the details. I much prefer fact than fighting. Under the rules listed above this is much better than I feared, but I still have a few problems.
Most conversations about this have in the past gone,
Q: "Why are we locking people up with out trial." A: "Because he was going to bomb Chicago." Q: "How do we know that?" A: "The people locking him up tell us so."
In truth that this ruling states is, "he has commited acts of violence in the past against his government." This is called treason.
So why go to this trouble when we could have just as easilly arrested him for committing Treason. There are three possible answers.
1) Someone in the Government really wanted the power to inprison people at their whim. This is very unlikely, and there is no evidence of such a conspiracy. THAT DOES NOT RULE OUT THAT THIS COULD BE USED AS A PRECEDENT FOR SUCH MISUSE OF POWER IN THE FUTURE! Do I think President Bush would arrest a Democratic challenger? No. Do I think some future president might try to get rid of his opponents this way? Yes.
2) There are sources of information that would be divulged if this went to trial. But we have arrested spies in the past. There are ways to keep such sources and such procedings secure. We did it during the entire Cold War with few problems.
3) Padilla is a source of information himself. Once he is sent to prison, there is no legal way to extract that information from him using the quasi-legal/quasi-torture tactics that the intelligence community has used in the past. Hence lock him up not to stop this attack, but to get information to stop other attacks.
The problem is that once he is so designated, he remains an Enemy Combatant until the end of the war, or until a beaurocrat realizes that a)his usefulness as a source of information is ended, and b)that beaurocrat has the power to tranfer him to a normal prison and redesignate him as a Traitor.
This is what I beleive was behind the Enemy Combatant designation, that and the belief that if it were made acceptable by the public, other US Citizens who plaid traitorous acts could be interrogated without the usual protections of the law in order to save US citizens from further attacks. A noble ends, but I don't believe they justify the means.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eric,
I understand the distinction between punishment and detention, although I think that applies to many criminals. We keep some of them behind bars to keep them from hurting people as well.
I have trouble with the German soldier analogy. US citizens shooting US soldiers, or planting bombs, or spying on military plans during WWII would have been guilty of crimes and tried. Even in e parte Quirin the court held that the defendants did not hold US citizenship (even in the case of Haupt, whose parents were naturalized citizens, the government held that "on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship."
"Enemy combatants" aren't "citizens" of Al-Qaeda. Padilla was arrested on US soil and is a US citizen.
Also the declared war with Germany is a wholly different animal than the "war" on terror. Which, as I have said is vague and can be stretched to mean almost anything? Are we giving the executive branch war powers forever?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eric,
Have you given up on me?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So I went to Ornery looking for the "Freakonomics" column, but it wasn't there. Instead, there was a Katrina column, which I read. In it, OSC said:
quote:Of course none of these people really think President Bush could have predicted or prepared any better than he did. There are agencies that are supposed to prepare, and they did their job up to any reasonable standard. Only idiots would really believe that any part of this disaster or its aftermath was the fault of the President.
which reminded me that this bit was left hanging.
I said, in response to something DarkKnight said (in the first quote):
quote:
quote:So you are saying that the Presidnet should have unlimited power to do anything that he (or she) sees fit to prevent these things from happening? If the President has total responsibility for all levels of handling a crisis, then he must be in absolute charge of all levels. States should have no say in anything that happens, the President will have absolute authority over every aspect of life. We would have to live in a total dictatorship for this to work the way you said. It's like saying if a newly hired custodian at a school commits a terrible act against a child, we blame the Superintendent, and take action against the Superintendent because that office is ultimately responsible while not bothering to look at the school, Human Resources, and other departments and see what action must be taken there to prevent future occurences.
I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that the President has total responsibility or that the problems here were because he didn't have enough power. I know my complaints center around the poor use that the President put to the considerable power he does have.
The errors in execution were numerous and it will obviously take some investigation to figure out who exactly screwed which pooch. There are some clear federal foulups, like the inability to establish communications for nearly 5 days after the hurricane hit.
However, what I'm making an issue of is not problems in execution but rather the general lack of planning and preparedness on a federal level. The federal Department of Homeland Security was not at all prepared to handle something like this. And yet, having it prepared is both well within the President's powers and was an explicit promise he made to the American people. Many of the grave flaws in the response here were in communication and coordination, whcih fall directly into the responsiblities of DHS and FEMA. The President had everything he needed to ensure that these agencies were ready for their roles here.
Or maybe you disagree. What extra powers did the President need to appoint someone comptetent to the head of FEMA? What extra powers did he need to have DHS and FEMA develop working relationships and plans with the various local authorities in potential trouble spots? How about having them train enough to prepared for such things as setting up communication systems in a devestated area or coordinating federal and state and city resources?
These are exactly the same things we're going to need in the event of a terrorist attack. But they are obviously not there now. It makes me wonder, other than invading two countries, one involved, one not, and curtailing civil rights, what exactly the Bush administration has been doing to deal with terrorist threats? What are their plans and what have their actions been? Because it's clear the readiness and preparedness they showed in response to New Orleans were greatly deficient.
and now I wonder, DarkKnight or others, whether there seems to be any validity to my statements or if I'm just the idiot that OSC said I was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not sure why we are talking about Katrina on this thread rather than on one of the many Katrina threads - but I'm game.
According to the Congressional Research Service (a nonpartisan office that works for the entire Congress) Governor Blanco followed all the necessary steps to request federal aid and, under the Stafford Act, the federal government had the authority needed to provide that aid.
quote: I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that the President has total responsibility or that the problems here were because he didn't have enough power. I know my complaints center around the poor use that the President put to the considerable power he does have.
The problems did not stem from the President. The problems stemmed from local and state government, LA Dept of Homeland Security NOT taking the right steps or following any of their own plans. Your complaints are misplaced.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: However, what I'm making an issue of is not problems in execution but rather the general lack of planning and preparedness on a federal level.
The problems started at the local and state level. They were completely unprepared, and did nothing to help the problem. The Federal level could do nothing without the local and state levels acting first. and now back to what this thread should be about...
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:Eric,
Have you given up on me?
One more try.
Forget the current political situation, for now. Forget Hamdi and Padilla. Forget the War on Terror.
On behalf of an enemy fighting a war against Country C, Person X engages in combat against Country C. Country C captures Person X.
There are only four real options for how Country C can unilaterally (i.e., not taking into account prisoner exchanges or other concessions by the enemy) deal with Person X:
1. Kill or permanently incapacitate Person X. 2. Keep Person X in custody as long as hostilities last. 3. Keep Person X in custody longer than hostilities last. 4. Keep Person X in custody shorter than hostilities last.
If you object to #2 on the basis that hostilities may last a very long time, then that means you must favor #4.
However, unilaterally releasing prisoners so they can rejoin the fight against Country C does not make sense, assuming Country C wants to win the war. Therefore, I do not see #4 as a viable option.
If, in the abstract, you see #4 as making sense, then there's really no point in discussing the issue further, and we will have to agree to disagree.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Options 2, 3, and 4 do not preclude giving Person X a fair trial, particularly when Person X is entitled to one under the laws of Country C.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly, twinky.
Eric,
Define "engage in combat". Are we talking about blowing up bridges? Disclosing classified information? Making a contribution to a "terrorist" organization? Some have claimed that war protests are treasonous. Who decides?
Certainly some of the above are already against the law and some should not be. If people break the law they are tried and, if convicted, detained. If we think the laws are insufficient, we have a constitutional remedy for that.
Again, are we allowing the executive branch to suspend habeas corpus forever?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think serial killers should be locked up, too. But not without a trial.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Quick caveat, which doesn't change my outrage over this decision: 2, 3, and 4 do not generally require fair trials. They require at most a hearing for citizens of the country one is at war with.
I mention it only because my outrage is based on the precise level of due process being denied to Hamdi and Padilla, so the proper amount of due process is important when analyzing this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Noted. Thanks for pointing it out. Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
twinky and kmbboots,
Remember, we're talking in the abstract here, and not about Hamdi, Padilla, or any particular war.
Assume Person X in the example has committed no crime. Exactly what would you hold a trial for?
The mere fact that you suggest a trial shows that you're still not understanding the basic distinction between detaining an enemy combatant and punishing someone for a crime. An enemy combatant does not need to be charged with a crime, because it's possible for an enemy combatant to have acted entirely legally. And where there is no crime, there can be no charge, no trial, and no sentencing.
If you take the position that a detention can only be legitimate if there is a trial and sentencing, then it is impossible to detain enemy combatants who have followed the rules of war. They must be released to continue fighting against Country C.
Is that your position?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am talking hypothetically. My question is, what has he (or anyone else - give me some examples) done that makes him an enemy combatant? How do we know he's an enemy combatant if he (or she) hasn't done anything? Somebody's say so. Who?
Must go now. On my way to DC for the protest. Look forward to your response on Monday.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Trying to be more clear. What legal actions are we keeping someone from performing by detaining them?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I understand the distinction just fine; I'm simply narrowing your example to make it relevant. I said "particularly when Person X is entitled to one under the laws of Country C." For example, if Person X is a citizen of Country C and the laws of Country C state that a person cannot be detained without charges or hearing/trial, then no, Person X cannot be detained indefinitely. On the other hand, if Person X is not entitled to a hearing/trial under the laws of Country C, then naturally Person X should not expect to receive one.
It depends entirely on the relationship between Person X and Country C (citizen? Landed immigrant? Foreign citizen?) and the laws of Country C. Since your example is so broad that neither of these things is specified, your question cannot have a simple yes/no answer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you take the position that a detention can only be legitimate if there is a trial and sentencing, then it is impossible to detain enemy combatants who have followed the rules of war.
Nope. Because then they're prisoners of war. But identifying someone as an enemy combatant who has not properly identified themselves, and thus violated the Geneva Conventions, is the tricky part.
What you're missing, EJS, is that "enemy combatants" are called enemy combatants precisely because they do not qualify as prisoners of war. But we have no real way to determine whether a U.S. citizen can be called an "enemy combatant;" presumably a trial should be required.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> What legal actions are we keeping someone from > performing by detaining them?
Well, for one example: In a war, it is not illegal for combatants on either side to shoot at each other during combat. That's why we don't put soldiers on trial for murder when they shoot enemy soldiers in battle.
However, even if enemy soldiers shooting at your troops is not illegal, you want them to stop doing it. So if you capture them, you detain them, rather than turn them loose to start shooting at your men again.
Have fun at your protest. I doubt you'll ever be back to read my response, though, because if the government can detain someone like Padilla indefinitely as an enemy combatant, then they'll probably do that to you, too. Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Tom, you miss the point completely.
Prisoners of war are a subset of enemy combatants. The subset is defined by adherence to certain rules.
If indefinite detention for the duration of hostilities is acceptable for prisoners of war -- who do follow the rules -- then surely it must be acceptable for enemy combatants who do not follow the rules.
Or is it your position that prisoners of war are entitled to fewer rights than enemy combatants who do not qualify as prisoners of war?
So, if I'm in uniform and carrying a gun while guarding a bridge, and your troops surround me and I surrender, then I'm a prisoner of war and you can put me in a POW camp until the war is over, even if I surrendered without firing a shot.
But under the exact same circumstances, if I'm not wearing a uniform, then I don't qualify for POW status. I'm an enemy combatant. Should I be charged with something and given a trial? What should I be charged with - failure to wear a uniform? What's the maximum sentence for that? With time off for good behavior, can I get out before the war is over?
Look, the first question boils down to this: can an enemy combatant (POW or not) be held until hostilities are over?
Once we have answered that question, we can move on to the question of what kind of process is necessary to determine whether someone is an enemy combatant, and whether citizenship status should make a difference. But until that first question is answered, there's no point in discussing the second, because if enemy combatants can't be held indefinitely, no process is enough.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Prisoners of war are a subset of enemy combatants.
Not unless "enemy combatants" are being defined quite differently.
quote: But under the exact same circumstances, if I'm not wearing a uniform, then I don't qualify for POW status. I'm an enemy combatant. Should I be charged with something and given a trial?
If you're using that hypothetical, here's one for you: you're standing on a bridge with no uniform. A bunch of soldiers wishing to use the bridge rush up, capture you, and throw you in jail indefinitely. What is your recourse for complaint?
I don't think anyone is arguing that enemy combatants cannot be detained for some period. The argument hinges around whether people merely accused of being enemy combatants are entitled to legal protection.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> Not unless "enemy combatants" are being defined > quite differently.
Let me see... Plain meaning of the words? Someone who is both and enemy and a combatant. Are you claiming that prisoners of war are not enemies, or that they are not combatants?
Perhaps you're confusing "unlawful combatant" with "enemy combatant." "Unlawful combatants" and "prisoners of war" are mutually exclusive sets, but "enemy combatants" covers both cases. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant for an explanation.
Now that we've cleared that up...
> The argument hinges around whether people > merely accused of being enemy combatants are > entitled to legal protection.
I don't think the argument hinges there at all. As I said earlier in this thread:
quote:The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants can be held indefinitely, but that they must be given a meaningful opportunity before a neutral decisionmaker to contest that designation.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that if there's a genuine issue as to whether someone is actually an enemy combatant, there should be no legal recourse.
But we do have people arguing that at least some enemy combatants should be put on trial instead of detained indefinitely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But we do have people arguing that at least some enemy combatants should be put on trial instead of detained indefinitely.
No, see, that's where I think you're wrong. I think most people here object to the presumption that the people involved -- who have not had trials -- are enemy combatants.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
And let me make it clear that, though I am generally a Bush supporter, I do not agree with the Bush administration's stance in the Hamdi case, which was that there was no need for an independent determination of the designation of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. In fact, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Scalia's dissent, which argued that a habeas corpus proceeding was appropriate and that he should be released unless criminal proceedings were started or Congress suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
However, I also believe there's a legitimate argument to be made for holding enemy combatants -- citizens or not -- for the duration of hostilities. Trial and conviction for a crime might still allow the enemy combatant to go free before the end of hostilities, enabling him to rejoin the fight. Trials also might require the government to choose between publicly disclosing intelligence sources still needed in the ongoing conflict, and failing to make a sufficient case for conviction.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> No, see, that's where I think you're wrong. I > think most people here object to the > presumption that the people involved -- who > have not had trials -- are enemy combatants.
And my first post on this topic was to try to clear up the wrong idea some people have that if the Bush administration labels a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, the citizen can't contest that designation.
If you believe that, you are wrong. If anyone believes that, they are wrong, too.
quote: Well, for one example: In a war, it is not illegal for combatants on either side to shoot at each other during combat. That's why we don't put soldiers on trial for murder when they shoot enemy soldiers in battle.
However, even if enemy soldiers shooting at your troops is not illegal, you want them to stop doing it. So if you capture them, you detain them, rather than turn them loose to start shooting at your men again.
So if I go trotting up to my nearest military base and start blasting away at soldiers, I'm not breaking any law?
BTW, the protest was amazing .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It also concluded that Hamdi is entitled only to a limited judicial inquiry into his detention’s legality under the war powers of the political branches, and not to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure.
Tell me how you would contest an assertion that you were an "enemy combatant" without being entitled to a "review of the factual determinations underlying (your) seizure."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would like to say that this is the first discussion about this topic I have had where I really learned something about this, something that I didn't already know from being s soldier.
I may not agree with some of the points made here, but I think that it is a good thing that the level of discourse has not escalated..at least not yet.
Eric, while I may not agree with all your points, and as TomD mentioned I see some serious holes in it, thank you for responding with actual logic rather than just attacking people who disagree with you as somehow un-American or traitors.
Yes, I have seen people make both accusation, sadly.
I think I understand where you are coming from, and I find that I agree with more of what you are saying than I do with most people who argue your side of this issue.
Not all, or even most, but some.
Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:BTW, the protest was amazing .
I know I was amazed by how dishonest the signs were, not to mention how incoherent most of the protestors I tried to get into discussions with were.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you want to discuss this, I've started another thread on the topic.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
kmbboots,
> So if I go trotting up to my nearest military > base and start blasting away at soldiers, I'm > not breaking any law?
Not if you're an enemy soldier. It's why Germany doesn't put American soldiers from WWII on trial for murder for killing German soldiers. It's why we didn't try German soldiers for killing American troops.
There are laws and rules about war, and one of them is that people who are acting properly within the rules of war are not committing crimes, even if the act would be a crime when not committed by someone acting within the rules of war.
Look, it's a very simple concept to understand, and the fact that you don't seem to understand it puzzles me.
TomDavidson,
You need to read more carefully. What you've quoted is a description of the holding of the appeals court -- and that holding was vacated by the Supreme Court. If you read a little further, you will find:
quote:Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14—15.
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi’s detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2—3, 15.
That's six justices in favor of a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant, and last time I counted, that was enough to form a majority of the Supreme Court.
Right or wrong, it's the current law of the land, folks. Feel free to argue whether that's the standard that should be used, but please don't argue any more that citizens can be locked up as enemy combatants without any chance to dispute that designation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
When Scalia and Stevens agree on something, it's worth taking notice. From the link to their dissent on the page linked above:
quote:Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime. Where the exigencies of war prevent that, the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2, allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily. Absent suspension, however, the Executive’s assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge. No one contends that the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, on which the Government relies to justify its actions here, is an implementation of the Suspension Clause. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision below.
quote:The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.
quote:Thus, criminal process was viewed as the primary means–and the only means absent congressional action suspending the writ–not only to punish traitors, but to incapacitate them.
quote:A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions.
quote:there is a world of difference between the people’s representatives’ determining the need for that suspension (and prescribing the conditions for it), and this Court’s doing so.
quote:As usual, the major effect of its constitutional improvisation is to increase the power of the Court. (I couldn't resist throwing this one in. )...It claims authority to engage in this sort of “judicious balancing” from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), a case involving … the withdrawal of disability benefits! Whatever the merits of this technique when newly recognized property rights are at issue (and even there they are questionable), it has no place where the Constitution and the common law already supply an answer.
quote:Moreover, even within the United States, the accused citizen-enemy combatant may lawfully be detained once prosecution is in progress or in contemplation. See, e.g., County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (brief detention pending judicial determination after warrantless arrest); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act). The Government has been notably successful in securing conviction, and hence long-term custody or execution, of those who have waged war against the state.
quote:I frankly do not know whether these tools are sufficient to meet the Government’s security needs, including the need to obtain intelligence through interrogation. It is far beyond my competence, or the Court’s competence, to determine that. But it is not beyond Congress’s. If the situation demands it, the Executive can ask Congress to authorize suspension of the writ–which can be made subject to whatever conditions Congress deems appropriate, including even the procedural novelties invented by the plurality today. To be sure, suspension is limited by the Constitution to cases of rebellion or invasion. But whether the attacks of September 11, 2001, constitute an “invasion,” and whether those attacks still justify suspension several years later, are questions for Congress rather than this Court. See 3 Story §1336, at 208—209.6 If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion through an opinion of this Court.
quote:“Safety from external danger,” Hamilton declared, “is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.” The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.
The Founders warned us about the risk, and equipped us with a Constitution designed to deal with it.
By the way, Scalia is one of the most widely misunderstood jurists; this decision encapsulates a lot of his judicial philosophy, including why "textualism" is a wholly inadequate name for it.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
You know, in reading those quotes, I'm leaning even more toward Scalia's point of view. When Scalia and Thomas disagree (which is more often than you might think), I generally find myself agreeing with Thomas. But in this case I think Scalia may have the better argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: kmbboots,
> So if I go trotting up to my nearest military > base and start blasting away at soldiers, I'm > not breaking any law?
Not if you're an enemy soldier. It's why Germany doesn't put American soldiers from WWII on trial for murder for killing German soldiers. It's why we didn't try German soldiers for killing American troops.
There are laws and rules about war, and one of them is that people who are acting properly within the rules of war are not committing crimes, even if the act would be a crime when not committed by someone acting within the rules of war.
I'm not talking about German soldiers in WWII; I'm talking about U.S. citizens, subject to U.S. laws. We don't have a declaration of war against a country here. There is nothing temporary or emergency about this. Now, for the foreseeable future, "meaningful opportunities" (whatever that means) can replace trials on the say-so of the executive branch. Where is the separation of powers?
I'm puzzled that you cannot understand that this is a serious erosion of our constitution.
quote: When Scalia and Stevens agree on something, it's worth taking notice.
As it is when Dagonee and I agree on something.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
kmbboots,
You keep bringing in extraneous information so that you never have to answer whether or not you believe enemy combatants can be held for the duration of hostilities.
So, let me ask it in a way you can answer with a simple yes or no.
If World War II were still going on today (which would still make it shorter than the Hundred Years War), do you believe that it would be legitimate for the U.S. to detain German and Japanese POWs indefinitely without charging them with a crime?
> I'm puzzled that you cannot understand that > this is a serious erosion of our constitution.
Well, since I'm leaning toward Scalia's viewpoint (which is that citizens should be either charged with a crime or released, unless Congress explicitly suspends the writ of habeas corpus), I think you underestimate the seriousness with which I take this issue. But I am also capable of seeing a legitimate argument on the other side.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't extraneus information. It is entirely relevant to what has actually happened. You keep stretching a hypothetical to outlandish lenghts.
If WWII were still going on today (which it isn't) and were a declared war (which is not the situation)I imagine that there would be the possibility of POW exchange (as was the case in the long-term wars of Europe and even in the Civil War here. Even if for some reason that were not possible, I would rather that the US incurred the danger of releasing those soldiers back to their countries than become a country full of the detention and internment camps needed to detain all these prisoners.
So I guess the "simple answer" would be "no".
For example, in a situation much closer to reality than your hypothetical, the policy of internment in Northern Ireland was a bad thing as was the internment of citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.
Now, will you answer my question with a yes or no? Do you think the President or the military should be able to imprison US citizens on his (or her) say so?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, will you answer my question with a yes or no? Do you think the President or the military should be able to imprison US citizens on his (or her) say so?
To be fair, EJS hasn't advocated this. He seems to have recognized the necessity for at least the protection outlined in Hamdi, which requires some sort of judicial oversight.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't say he advocated it. He has been pretty clear that he doesn't. What I am concerned with is learning what exact safeguards are in place to insure our constitutional right to a trial. Padilla seems to have further eroded these.
How is the ruling in Padilla different from a suspension of habeas corpus? I'm sure there are diferrences - I want to know what those are.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> So I guess the "simple answer" would be "no".
Thanks for answering. Since I would answer that question "yes," it shows a fundamental point of disagreement between us -- one which cannot really be argued more than we already have.
> Do you think the President or the military > should be able to imprison US citizens on his > (or her) say so?
Yes.
Now, before you condemn me as someone unconcerned with civil liberties, let me point out that you left out the word "indefinitely" from your question. If that word were there, I would answer "no."
I believe there may be circumstances where detaining U.S. citizens for a short period of time would be reasonable, just on the military's or the President's say-so. For example, if the military captures people on the battlefield, the determination as to whether they are U.S. citizens and whether they were actually enemy combatants or merely bystanders does not need to be made immediately while the military is still under fire from the enemy. Holding them for a reasonable amount of time until their status can be determined seems acceptable to me. A "no" answer to your question would require some sort of judicial determination on the battlefield before anyone claiming U.S. citizenship could be captured and held.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is the ruling in Padilla different from a suspension of habeas corpus?
Padilla follows Hamdi, pretty much to the letter.
Read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi (linked above) for a full description of the differences and similarities. He says it better than I can.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That makes a certain amount of sense and I agree. We may differ on what is a "short" or "reasonable" period of time. I want the period of time defined. There is no foreseeable end to the "War on Terror", so claiming that we are in "battlefield" conditions for the duration of it gives the military and the executive branch too much power.
Am I making sense so far?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, Dagonee and I have cross-posted. My response was to Eric.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:We may differ on what is a "short" or "reasonable" period of time. I want the period of time defined. There is no foreseeable end to the "War on Terror", so claiming that we are in "battlefield" conditions for the duration of it gives the military and the executive branch too much power.
I see two completely different time periods being talked about here.
1. The period for which the military can hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant before allowing the citizen to contest that designation before a neutral authority.
2. The period for which the military can hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant if the neutral authority determines that designation is accurate.
For #1, with the detainee in custody outside of an active combat zone, I think the reasonable length is very short -- a matter of only a few days at most (although the detainee can ask for a delay if more time is needed to prepare to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.)
In an active combat zone, transfering the detainee ouside of the zone may take a while, so I'd be more flexible on the time frame.
As for #2, well, I think it's reasonable to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. You do not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still curious as to how you're going to define "neutral authority" with a straight face.
---------
On a related topic, here are two paragraphs from a letter written by a Captain of the 504th Parachute Infantry to Senator McCain. I've selected these only to make a larger moral point, mind you, and not because I think they're immediately relevant to this determination:
quote: Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda’s, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President’s ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, since what everyone is asking for is review before a "neutral authority," I'm wondering what you're getting at.
If you don't consider judges neutral, then the problem isn't solved by criminal proceedings, either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks Eric,
A couple more questions as to how this applies to the current situation.
What is a "neutral authority"? Why can't we use the courts for this? Again, for US citizens, what can they do that is dangerous that isn't also against the law? Padilla (for example) was planning to blow up a plane. This is a criminal act for a US citizen while it may not be for citizen of a country with whom we are at war.
quote: For #1, with the detainee in custody outside of an active combat zone, I think the reasonable length is very short -- a matter of only a few days at most (although the detainee can ask for a delay if more time is needed to prepare to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.)
In an active combat zone, transfering the detainee ouside of the zone may take a while, so I'd be more flexible on the time frame.
Are we doing that? Is it only taking a few days for the people we have detained?
quote:As for #2, well, I think it's reasonable to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. You do not.
Not when we have only the military or the President deciding whether they are enemy combatants. Especially not when the "duration of hostilities" is endless. The "war on terror" is a different thing than the war with Germany and Japan. If we give up these protections, we may be giving them up forever.
Do you understand that this is a different situation than German soldiers on a battlefield in WWII?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, since what everyone is asking for is review before a "neutral authority," I'm wondering what you're getting at.
If you don't consider judges neutral, then the problem isn't solved by criminal proceedings, either.
I consider a "neutral authority" much more likely to be possible in an atmosphere of openness, with general evidentiary procedure followed. Do you think military tribunals are acceptably "neutral" for a determination which could, as Erik advocates, result in detaining individuals indefinitely when engaged in a war against a hypothetical?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It seems to me Erik has been advocating the Hamdi methodology, which guarantees a certain level of due process protections. Remember, Padilla is following Hamdi - that's why it reached the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Here's what the Hamdi decision says about the use of military tribunals:
quote:There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal. Indeed, it is notable that military regulations already provide for such process in related instances, dictating that tribunals be made available to determine the status of enemy detainees who assert prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. See Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, Army Regulation 190—8, §1—6 (1997). In the absence of such process, however, a court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved. Both courts below recognized as much, focusing their energies on the question of whether Hamdi was due an opportunity to rebut the Government’s case against him. The Government, too, proceeded on this assumption, presenting its affidavit and then seeking that it be evaluated under a deferential standard of review based on burdens that it alleged would accompany any greater process. As we have discussed, a habeas court in a case such as this may accept affidavit evidence like that contained in the Mobbs Declaration, so long as it also permits the alleged combatant to present his own factual case to rebut the Government’s return. We anticipate that a District Court would proceed with the caution that we have indicated is necessary in this setting, engaging in a factfinding process that is both prudent and incremental. We have no reason to doubt that courts faced with these sensitive matters will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns.
This will, by its nature, require following "general evidentiary procedure."
As of now, in the citizen context, these are being adjudicated in courts. If and when the tribunals are used, there will still be access to appeals courts.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:As for #2, well, I think it's reasonable to hold enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. You do not. -------------------------------------------------- Not when we have only the military or the President deciding whether they are enemy combatants.
If you look at #2, it specifically says "if the neutral authority determines that designation is accurate." So your objection does not apply.
As for what a neutral authority is, right now that means federal courts. The Supreme Court did leave open the possibility that some form of military tribunal could serve that function:
quote:There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal. Indeed, it is notable that military regulations already provide for such process in related instances, dictating that tribunals be made available to determine the status of enemy detainees who assert prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention.
Of course, the same objection TomDavidson raises ("Do you think military tribunals are acceptably "neutral" for a determination which could, as Erik advocates, result in detaining individuals indefinitely when engaged in a war against a hypothetical?") also applies against military tribunals determining POW status in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
While mistakes and/or bad faith are always possible, I don't think our military actually wants to indefinitely detain people who are not enemy combatants.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Eric. I'm good with Federal Courts. A military tribunal is a different thing. I'm looking for separation of powers. I don't think our military want to detain people either. But we have specific protections in place whether we need them right now or not.
I don't want to see these protections eroded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: While mistakes and/or bad faith are always possible, I don't think our military actually wants to indefinitely detain people who are not enemy combatants.
This may be the difference. With this president, and this administration, and this military, I think mistakes and bad faith are likely. Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Tom, as far as I know, this president, this administration, and this military have detained two U.S. citizens as enemy combatants: Hamdi and Padilla.
Unless you have evidence that their designations as enemy combatants was the result of either mistake or bad faith, then we only have your say-so that mistakes and bad faith are likely. It looks to me like the administration and the military have been very cautious in applying the enemy combatant label to U.S. citizens.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Tom, as far as I know, this president, this administration, and this military have detained two U.S. citizens as enemy combatants: Hamdi and Padilla.
That's one of the scary things about throwing away incarnations of habeus corpus. There often develops a situation where "As far as I know" and the reality of the situation are very different things, as there is no check on this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squick said exactly what I hit "reply" to say. So never mind. *grin*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would just add that the Constitution exists to insure that we don't have to depend on the benevolence of any president, any administration, or any military.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:That's one of the scary things about throwing away incarnations of habeus corpus. There often develops a situation where "As far as I know" and the reality of the situation are very different things, as there is no check on this.
quote:Squick said exactly what I hit "reply" to say. So never mind. *grin*
Give me a break. My caveat was in case there were some U.S. citizen being held as an enemy combatant about whom I had not heard because he had not become a cause celebre.
But still, your response has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.
If this president, this administration, and this military were in fact secretly holding U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, habeas corpus would do them no good -- because if no one outside their captors knows they're being held, no one could take any legal action on their behalf. Thus the "throwing away" of habeas corpus rights would not affect them.
quote:I would just add that the Constitution exists to insure that we don't have to depend on the benevolence of any president, any administration, or any military.
Kmbboots, on the other hand, makes a very good point -- because it is generally applicable, not just a display of animus toward the Bush administration.
Even if, contrary to TomDavidson's unsubstantiated assertions, the Bush administration has been very careful in its detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, it's quite possible that future administrations will not be. Therefore, developing procedures that will adequately protect U.S. citizens from detention due to mistakes and bad faith is a good idea. (It's probably a good idea to develop adequate procedures for non-citizens as well.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why her point -- which is the SAME as my point -- is more accurate because it's less specific. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Eric,
quote:If this president, this administration, and this military were in fact secretly holding U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, habeas corpus would do them no good -- because if no one outside their captors knows they're being held, no one could take any legal action on their behalf. Thus the "throwing away" of habeas corpus rights would not affect them.
You're putting the cart before the horse there. The only way that people could (barring illegal actions by our government) get into that situation is if we threw away the instances of habeus corpus (as a concept, not as a specific legal thing) that prevent the government from doing this.
When we're debating whether the goverment can disappear people based only on their say so, saying that having rules saying that the government has to show proof that someone has committed a crime before imprisioning them won't help them after they've been disappeared is kind of missing the point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When we're debating whether the goverment can disappear people based only on their say so
Of course, that's not what's being debated now. The Padilla decision specifically does NOT say that the goverment can disappear people based only on their say so. And no court case will protect against such a thing happening.
quote:I would just add that the Constitution exists to insure that we don't have to depend on the benevolence of any president, any administration, or any military.
Or judges.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh, but it is Dag. And I quote:
quote:If this president, this administration, and this military were in fact secretly holding U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, habeas corpus would do them no good -- because if no one outside their captors knows they're being held, no one could take any legal action on their behalf. Thus the "throwing away" of habeas corpus rights would not affect them.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
quote:I'm not sure why her point -- which is the SAME as my point -- is more accurate because it's less specific.
Because you have absolutely no evidence whatsover to back up your claim that the current adminsitration is likely to make mistakes or use bad faith in detaining U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. There have been two instances so far, and neither of them seems to be a case of mistake or bad faith.
For example, consider the following two statements: 1. TomDavidson's posts on Hatrack are likely to be factually incorrect. 2. It's a good idea not to believe that everything you read on Hatrack is factually correct.
#2 is certainly true.
#1 is more specific than #2, but that doesn't make it more accurate. Since you've made over 20,000 posts in these forums and I haven't read more than a tiny fraction of them, I haven't got much evidence as to the likelihood of factual incorrectness in your posts. You may, in fact, be substantially less prone to factual incorrectness than the average Hatrack forum poster.
So, as you can see, specificity does not necessarily correlate with accuracy.
I asked you for evidence that the Bush administration was mistaken or showing bad faith in its designation of citizens as enemy combatants, and all you and Mr. Squicky could come up with was an irrelevancy regarding my caveat as to the number of detainees I was aware of.
Mr. Squicky,
quote:You're putting the cart before the horse there. The only way that people could (barring illegal actions by our government) get into that situation is if we threw away the instances of habeus corpus (as a concept, not as a specific legal thing) that prevent the government from doing this. [Emphasis added by EJS.]
Since secret detentions of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants would, in fact, be illegal under current law, my point stands. If the current administration is detaining citizens beyond the ones that public knows about, habeas corpus isn't doing them a lot of good, and questions about current habeas corpus jurisprudence are among the least of their problems.
And, if your only point was about future hypothetical loss of habeas corpus rights that would allow secret detentions, then my caveat of "as far as I know" with regard to the current situation is irrelevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squicky, why are you quoting something that explains in perfect detail why secret detentions are not relevant to this discussion?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
maybe I'll come back and address some of the other points that bug me later.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)...It claims authority to engage in this sort of “judicious balancing” from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), a case involving … the withdrawal of disability benefits! Whatever the merits of this technique when newly recognized property rights are at issue (and even there they are questionable), it has no place where the Constitution and the common law already supply an answer.