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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember the head of the Education department who claimed that the teachers union were terrorists? Now he can have them all locked away.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe many of you are over-reacting. Until the Pres can do this in secret I am not worried at all.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
maybe I'll come back and address some of the other points that bug me later.
