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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which (or, rather, its inverse) is not even remotely close to what he said, and I suspect nothing like what he meant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the Hamdi decision provides safeguards which, if followed, would stop it from happening to random citizens or political opponents.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
