|
Padilla case reversed: Bush can detain U.S. citizens without charging them
Two comments I want to make on this story. First, the judge, Michael Luttig, is a candidate for Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement on the Supreme Court, and this decision certainly puts him in a very good light within the Administration.
And second, the decision is chilling: the President has the power to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely, without charging him, if the President decides that that person is an "enemy combatant". Quote:
|
The first thing I thought when I heard about this, given the fact that the next appeal is to the US Supremes, was that if the case comes up after Roberts is (more than likely) put in as head Justice, what is the chance that the case will be reversed? Admittedly I don't have the full background on the case, but I fail to understand how they are getting around habeas corpus...is the problem with bringing a charge against Padilla that afterwards, they will naturally have to actually try him?
edit The second thing I thought was: I don't want to hear the Bush Administration describe itself as "Constructionalist" or "Originalist" or any of that crap any more. |
Quote:
|
Has she decided yet? Is it fully her decision, or can the Administration force her to stick with her resignation?
|
I think it's her decision, but she said she'd stay on only until a replacement is sworn in. It might be moot anyway, given the low percentage of appeals that the SCOTUS actually chooses to hear. This one is clearly a fundamental case though, so they damn well should take it.
|
We shouldn't be too surprised by this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war and detained people, even a US supreme court justice, for speaking out against him. Unfortunately we let our congress and senate representatives authorize the president to do this with the declaration of near unlimited powers over a vaguely defined conflict.
|
ouch. i just don't know why people are so ready to abandon one of the greatest legal systems in the history of the world. i'm such a stauch beleiver in the rule of law that this just seems anathema.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
A German soldier captured in WWII was detained until after the war. He may have never fired a gun, or done anything anti-American, he might even be pro-US, but he still stays in a POW camp.
Padilla is an non-uniformed soldier of a terrorist organization. In WWII he would have simply been shot as a spy. He is lucky its not WWII and is only being detained. |
Ustwo
I was under the impression that the current Administration was working very hard to avoid giving these detainees the designation of "soldier" and so forth in order to get around the Geneva Conventions, no? I may not care for the guy (in fact, I don't) but he's still as U.S. citizen. If he's a spy, charge him with treason / sedition / whatever. This is a very dangerous precedent. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Even US citizens who are spies still need to be given a trial. This is a sad day for our Constitution... RIP.
|
Would these be 'activist judges'? Of course not, they are supporting conservatives...
Before going to the SCOTUS can't they ask the entire 4th Circuit to review the case? There is a much better chance of that happening than hte SCOTUS taking it up. This is the worst offense against the constitution spanning Bush's entire Presidency. More proof that he's the worst President ever. Another thing, this is a much bigger issue than Katrina yet there are only 14 posts in this thread. What rights given via the Constitution do we still have? I'm so sick of Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution. |
kutulu
As far as I can tell, there is no other news that is being well-reported right now in the U.S. Not to appear insensitive to the victims of the hurricane, but Katrina trumps a lost white girl any day in its ability to wipe out coverage of other news items, and to the extent that we should all be concerned and outraged (my opinion, obviously) over the crap in New Orleans, it would appear that it will be a while before we get back to anything happenen over there in I-RAQ or in other important domestic or foreign affairs...not a bad time to hold a hearing for a new Supreme Court Justice though, I'll tell you that much. Not that it's constructed this way, but the timing is sort of beautiful for conservatives on this one. edit kutulu pointed out that i might have been unclear. italics = added text |
This thread isn't about some lost white chick. This is about the courts supporting Bush while he burns the Constitution. Habeas Corpus dates back to English Law in 1679 and it was important enough to be included in our constitution.
|
hmmm...so i'm thinking you're not really doing the sarcasm thing today? i'm just going to have to go ahead and sort of agree with you right there, and i might mention that my earlier post sort of looks a lot like yours above.
edit i edited my previous post. yes, i'm feeling convoluted today. |
This isn't a new precedent, it's been done before in WWII. The ruling doesn't give the administration a blank check either, they still have to make the case the person is an enemy combatant. As far as the cries "Padilla is a US citizen blah blah", that point might not be true; in the past US citizens have lost citizenship after certain actions, namely alligning themselves with enemies of the United States in a time of war.
Everything the President has done has been cleared by the constitution, on the account that the President and Congress are provided powers to act in common defence of the country and the constitution. On top of that Bush, or any President, is given war time powers. The President is charged with faithfully executing all laws passed by congress, in this case the articles of War that have been ratified by our congress, articles that I would bet Padilla is in gross violation of. |
Then charge him and be done with it.
|
Quote:
edit mental typo |
Pigglet it's not an issue of Iraq, or a matter of declaring war against a sovereign, or a phantom word. Articles of War refer to rules/law and conduct set in place by our congress.
|
i think our treatment of enemy combatants captured on the afghani and iraqi battlefields is too lax. they have forfeited the traditional geneva convention status by nature of the way they carry out the war (no uniforms, mixing with civilian populace, firing from schools/mosques etc.)
but, when it comes to my countrymen... i don't want any concessions made. if padilla is a citizen, then he is entitled every ounce of due process. it's hard not to chuckle at alarmists who act like Bush is draconian in any way (in light of the historical precedents), but Bush's relative restraint doesn't make this right. |
Well, I really don't see any historical precedent, myself. In Lincoln's case, there was a Civil War going on, and it was still ruled unconstitutional. In the few other cases, the concepts of enemy, battlefield, combat, and end-of-hostilities were all very clearly and concretely defined. In this case every one of these terms is nebulous and subjective, making the whole thing completely open-ended. I don't see how it's possible not to conclude that the power granted to the president in the current "war on terrorism" context is way beyond any historical precedent.
|
the current war holds many unique characteristics (in our history anyway), but i think that it isn't without its own historic parallels.
for example: our war with japan caused FDR to send all japanese to internment camps. the enemy combatants in our current war share a remarkable number of similar characteristics (foreign born, middle eastern, male, fervently religious). many more shared traits than those interred in WWII... yet they aren't even (legally) subject to added suspician when going through an airport metal detector. |
Quote:
recent documents have proved that high up officials in the adminstration admitted *at the time* that national security did not provide a valid reason for the detentions, and that they were racist, not just. this info is from http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/...ant_inter.html. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
i wasn't excusing internment camps, i was bringing up the similarities between our situation today and that of 65 years ago... the restraint demonstrated by Bush in similar circumstances dramatically exceeds that of FDR's. thus, the historical precedents back up my assertion that Bush's measures (while still wrong) are mild when given a wider perspective. again, bush is tracking wrong... it's just irresponsible to label the policies as draconian. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Man, with all the hand-wringing and grandstanding here, you'd think that people were being locked up en masse. This is something I'm personally glad to see-the government taking steps to ensure the safety of the public. This decision should be celebrated.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
wow...
anythign that reduces the rights of people accused of crimes will lead to safety for all.... accused of crimes... are you kidding me? convicted, yes...accused...I don't think so. Anyone can be accused of anything, revoking rights bc of that accusation is just absurd. sorry, but w/out due process, our whole system of government fails, period. just wait till you're the one accused and yes, that day would come. |
Quote:
|
slippery slope.
|
Quote:
At no time in the history of this country has any court ruled that it was permissible for the president to set up a prison camp system for Japanese Americans not accused of a crime. On the contrary, the SCOTUS at about the same time as Korematsu ruled the camps unconstitutional in ex parte Endo. And of course Korematsu is completely irrelevant to Padilla and was never even brought up by the prosecutor in his case. It surprises me that anybody would use the Japanese internment camps as a reason not to get too concerned about Padilla. The logic here escapes me. And again, my larger point is this: the power granted by Padilla to the president in the current "war on terror" context is way beyond any legal precedent. There is nothing in the Padilla case that ensures that Padilla will ever be released, since the "war on terror" has no definable end. And the same goes for any other "enemy combatant" which could be anybody, because "terror" is the enemy. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
raveneye,
ahh... now simple internment won't meet the thread's criteria, it's full-blown prison? these discussions often end up with moving goal-posts. sheesh... what does it take to get a friggin "point conceded" around here? |
Quote:
The only way "internment" would meet my criteria is if a federal court ruled that "internment" were legal. Korematsu did not do that. Endo in fact did the opposite, in 1944. |
Quote:
that's what i was saying :) |
Quote:
After all, if you are accused of being a murderer, you are probably guilty of it. |
Quote:
editMojo or whoever: Quote:
/pigglet potentially reveals his shocking ignorance of the situation. |
I'll join you in the not being sure ignorance. I don't believe Korea or Vietnam were ever formerly declared wars.
|
Does anyone know the legal description on an "enemy combatent"? Is there an official descrpition, or is it a blanket term that can be applied to a host of people and situations?
Edit: are we talking the GCIII description? Is there a description in US law? |
will
I think I can give a little information on that one - looks pretty blanket to me. A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict 2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces - that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; - that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; - that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. - or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. ******************* /off to see what I can find about this articles of war / being at war business |
Quote:
|
I've never been afraid of what people aren't allowed to do. But what they are allowed to do scares me greatly. Nothing in history has shown that people are ready for freedom. No right should be absolute.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Secondly, it was you who said "odds are if you are accused, you are guilty". I just took you at face value. Apparently you meant "if the government accuses you, then you are guilty". Very well. So now you place your trust in the government. That, given the power to accuse people and throw away the key, will hold themselves to a high standard and only accuse people who are guilty. Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all. You said that. Do you mean it? DA's don't get elected by putting guilty people behind bars, and letting innocent people go. They get elected by putting someone behind bars for every crime, and not losing any case which they start to prosecute. "It's a results-oriented process today; fairness be damned. The philosophy of the past 10 to 15 years [is] that whatever works is what's right." -- Robert Merkle (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) This is with the "deck stacked against the state". http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003..._interview.htm Would 25% false-conviction rates be too high for your ethics? If 1/4 people convicted of murder did not do the crime, would that be acceptable to you? The lovely thing about DNA testing is that it has allowed retroactive analysis of convictions, and actual beyond-a-reasonable-doubt overturning of cases. If 1/4 cases from pre-DNA days in which DNA evidence was still availiable where overturned because the DNA proved the conviction wrong -- wouldn't that sort of indicate that your trust is misplaced? The government is just people. When these people are constrained, chained, and held back by checks and balances, you may be justified in having some faith in them. This does not mean that anything good will happen when you remove the constraints. An attack dog on a leash will not kill children in the street. This tells you nothing about what happens when you remove the leash. The president is occasionally given powers which are best executed by one man (a committee cannot be the top of a chain of command), require quick decision making, or is given the right to hinder other aspects of government. Giving the executive branch the unquestionable power to detain, when there is plenty of time to evaluate the detention, is idiocy. |
Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.
|
I think alansmithee is right when he said, "Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all." That can be considered an accurate statement.
However, I don't agree with the idea; that overall safety is more important then individual rights. About the topic of the thread: were these judges actually appointed by Bush? There seems to be a few people complaining about him in regards to this, and I'm not sure how he fits in, other then it could increase his power to incarcirate US citizens suspected of terrorist activities (which isn't something I'm arguing here). |
Quote:
Valuation of security over liberty is not a decision i can factually prove to be incorrect. I don't think it's smart...i don't think the government has a wonderful track record with unchecked coercive power, nor do i like the idea of a more authoritarian state. but those are mostly value judgements, not factual debates. to be frank, i don't think Alan's rhetoric on this issue is going to convince a great deal of people. He's making such provocative statements as to pretty much alienate him from most folks, even the conservative camp here at TFP which tends to be pretty libertarian, not totalitarian. |
Quote:
And to me, libertarianism is just an euphamism for anarchy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. Your math is theoretically impossible. 2. What is your position on the notion of "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"? 3. From what you know, would you have liked to have lived under Stalin? |
One also is forced to wonder how you would deal with your Mother in prison....unjustly, having fallen victim to the "other 25%".
I would be interested in your thoughts on this scenario Alan. |
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Alan is all for a governmental crackdown on society, so long as his rights and liberties are protected. How would he feel if the injustice was forced upon him though?
|
Well, the thing that I keep thinking about is that these scenarios have been played out countless times throughout history, and every time a society gets all ape-shit totalitarian, corruption spreads like wild fire, the people get super pissed off, and they kick the shit out of the government.
So the real question I'm left with is whether alansmithee is serious in his positions, or whether he's trying to be incendiary? Oh what the heck, one last question: If the government is justified in throwing people in prison if they think they're bad guys, or if they might be bad guys, etc...do you expect the people of accused of being bad guys to sit back and take it...or do you expect them to say "the heck with this crap, I think I'm going to get a little revolution going on?" Let's say this "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world...If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17." Then, if 25% of 5.6 million is 1.4 million (which it is)...then you're saying you're fine with about 1.4 million people being in prison incorrectly (assumiing that 5.6 million deserve to be there in the first place) and don't think that's going to cause any problems? I've detected that you have some issues with the partiality of the legal system towards convicted black people...you don't think that an incarceration rate of 25% more blacks in prison, fully in the knowledge that there's a ton of false convictions is going to cause massive problems? Hmmm.... edit It might be interesting to juxtapose this position with the fact that (in my opinion) we're justifiably freaking out as a nation over somewhere from a hundred to a couple thousand potentially dead in New Orleans, and the potential "sluggishness" of our government to deal fairly and adequately with the people there. I think, and I could be wrong, but I *think* that people in the U.S. would get so crazy with the cheeze whiz it would make Detroit after a Red Wings Stanley Cup look like an upset child knocking over a house of cards. double edit alan maybe you're trying to claim you're happy with the status quo, in that we assuredly have false convictions already? |
Quote:
In the Padilla case, I am uncomfortable knowing that the source of the "intelligence" that was used detain him is the same as that used to support WMD in Iraq. Our system of justice has always had a requirement for due process with checks and balances. I don't see any good reason to abandon it now. |
Quote:
Openly declaring that you believe that less freedom is a good thing is clearly meant to garner a response. Do i really need to be saying any of this? It seems rather straightforward to me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(edit-forgot about Mussolini) |
Quote:
Also, the exact circumstances would matter in this case. There's a difference between just randomly charging/convicting people, and charging/convicting those who there is evidence in support of their wrongdoing, evidence which gives a false impression. Quote:
Quote:
And you are right I do have issues with how Blacks are treated in the justice system. But what I'd like to see isn't a lessening of that (mainly because I think it is near impossible) but other races treated more like blacks. Again, it might cause problems having a great deal of false convictions, but I don't think much more than what you see now. And being falsely convicted doesn't mean that you can't be freed at a later date (much like what happens now). Quote:
Because I think my statements have gotten quite a bit of reaction (deserved or not) |
Quote:
|
Deeming someone to be an illegal combatant isn't a blank check for detention. There are still provisions in place, most noteably is that people accused of being an illegal combatant can challenge the status. Treason could be applicable in the case of Padilla because he is a citizen (again I know that people have been stripped of their status as citizens in the past, don't know how due process has factored in, or what even constitutes 'due process' in such an instance), but the issue really only comes up in the case of foreign nationals.
|
Quote:
If they can arrest whoever they want and throw away the key, they don't have to aim at the guilty. One person gets put away per murder -- if 25% of the people put away for murder are innocent, then 25% of murders walk away scot free. Djte, Quote:
The government is far far more dangerous than a petty murder. Because the government deals out harm wholesale. Alan doesn't seem to understand what kinds of evil an unchecked government can entail. Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- government without strict, strong and constant checks of it's power is more dangerous, deadly and evil than anything. Everyone else, be aware that there are people who will sell you down the river. They will salute anyone who will lie to them and tell them they will be safe. They will kill you at the whim of their authority figures. These people exist, they are your neighbours, and you must not let them take control of government. These people exist, they are your police officers, and you must not let them go unchecked. These people exist, they are your military brass, and you must not trust them. These people exist, they are your politicians, and you must not let apathy unshackle them. When you hear your politicians say things that lean towards Alan's viewpoints, realize they are not just "pandering to their base" or "using rheotric to sound strong". They will do these things. Freedom will be thrown away by people like Alan. They are the domestic enemies of freedom. |
Quote:
|
I couldn't tell you all the provisions in place specifically, but the fact that 40 have been cleared and nearly 200 have been either released or transferred certainly lends creedence to the idea that not everyone is rotting in Gitmo as a result of the all evil/all encompassiong "illegal combatant" detentions and semantics.
|
Quote:
Again, If detaining someone with no evidence and no charge on the word of the CinC, whats to stop the same from happening to anyone else with and for less? |
Quote:
Every innocent person convicted of murder almost always represents a guilty person who has escaped justice. |
DK you are completely over simplying what has happened with Padilla. Here is a link, it's a Writ of Certiorari, it was filed for a stay against Padilla once the second circuit ruled that Shrub was without authority to detain, it explains shit better then I can; sadly I cannot directly quote it because it is in pdf, I got it off Findlaw though.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/p...11604usmot.pdf |
Mojo, I read this and the only thing this states and refers to is the expedition of an appeal to overturn the second courts ruling. Did I miss something?
|
It was somewhere in the first appendage I believe. Probably didn't miss much I was just attempting to point out Padilla did more then merely exit a plane and got picked up without charge.
|
Ok, I see what you are referring to and I did over simplify it but the fact still remains that we have an alleged connection and until evidence can be shown all we have is the report of a plot to detonate dirty bombs or blow up apartment buildings. In america we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
|
i was under the impression that padilla was arrested after getting off a plane.
maybe he was part of al qaeda, maybe he wasnt..so charging him and taking him to trial is only fair..but he wasnt captured on the battlefield. even john walker lindh who was caught on the battlefield was given a trial. i dont see why the bush adminstration is differentiating between them??..anyone have any ideas? |
I thought Padilla was apprehended by the FBI, Bush and the DoD asked for a transfer of jurisdiction to the military because of Padilla's alleged connections to Al Qaeda, a group the United States is at war with. The illegal Combatant/terrorist status is very similiar to that of being a spy, as such the military is within it's jurisdiction to act. That's what I gather.
Also Lindh was affiliated with the Taliban correct? Not Al Qaeda, that in my mind could make a big difference. If he had no intelligence value he would be no real use to the CIA/DoD/NSA, maybe that's why they would leave him within civil jurisdiction. |
Quote:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin That quote just seems to jump to mind. Safety as a whole, is a completely arbitrary and frankly idiotic concept. It is neither tangible nor measurable, let alone real. It is an illusory concept that allows the human mind to work within a specific set of parameters so that it can adequately address the world around itself. A sense of safety is no more than the comfort one receives from his environment and the factors within it. As the people of New Orleans found out, at any time, given any set of circumstances, your whole world can come crashing down around you. As to your second comment, regarding the government and the blind trust you place in it, I'm rather disheartened, as this seems to be a growing trend for the younger generation. You want to go down the slippery slope argument of safety, I'll take you down one that takes your argument a bit further. 1) Rights reduction occurs by the government in the guise of "safety." 2) Citizens eventually forfeit every right that could potentially cause harm or infringe the "safety" of others. 3) The government makes all decisions for people, without checks and balances to their power. 4) Rights of citizens completely disappear. 5) Without the obligations to the citizens (as the citizens have forfeitted their rights, and thus there are no government obligations to the citizenry), the government has carte blanche as not even the citizens have the right to stop it. 6) With obligations voided, the government acts in its own self-interest, as any reasonably aware entity will fundamentally do, regardless of the effects on its people. 7) The government's self-interest lies in fundamental conflict with that of the citizenry, by definition. 8) The government fulfills only the needs necessary for itself, and the citizenry falls into disrepair, poverty and despair. The only difference between my slippery slope and yours is that mine is proven both by history and logic whereas yours lies firmly on a foundation of sand, piss and vinegar, holding no merit even to the most cursory of logical examinations. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
alansmithee,
Quick question: If you accept the concept that slavery inherently limits the rights of the individual, then would you accept the conclusion that slavery tends towards more safety for all? Second, if you accept that slavery has often been the result of governmental policy decisions, then would you say that you trusted a government that enslaved people, say for instance people like you, to make decisions on your behalf more so than some "random person?" |
Btw, you do know "Alan Smithee" is a Hollywood term? Union rules mean that every movie has to have Director credit. When there is no director willing to take the blame for a movie, the name "Alan Smithee" is used for director credit.
The name "Alan Smithee" means "anonymous and doing something shameful". I do not know if alansmithee means his choice of psuedonym to say this. |
yeah, i've seriously considered the "troll" factor here, but i'm giving the benefit of the doubt. it's why i haven't posted more to some of threads....well, shit the politics threads usually degenerate after 10-15 posts anyways, but...still.
|
The Court of Appeals has decided that the Bush Administration can't have it both ways, and it looks likely that the Padilla case will be heading to SCOTUS afterall.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122205C.shtml Quote:
|
Padilla makes it to the Supreme Court, followed by a Bush counter attack. All eyes are on Chief Justice Roberts.
Link Quote:
|
Quote:
The question is though, what will Bush do if the ruling goes against him? |
Pan, at this point I think the better question is what will we do?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project