Posted on 12/01/2002 3:57:49 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say.
The elements of this new system are already familiar from President Bush's orders and his aides' policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite military detention for those designated "enemy combatants," liberal use of "material witness" warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Domestic terrorists are still treated the same way.
And why do they never admit that the congress really designated the "enemy combatants"?
We've all read Public Law 107-40 in which congress did "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces ...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..."
If Bush ignored the enemy combatants congress could and should impeach him!
How will we know when that day comes? I shudder to think.
They should be placed in camps!
That is a very bad idea. He will not always be president but the concept will be embedded in our law for all time. Precedent is very important to our court system. How do we stop a future Democratic president from throwing everyone in the VRWC into the catagory of enemy combatants. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. Once so named, there is no fighting back, no trials or juries or any recourse at all.
Nothing more is needed to meet the definition of a police state.
By keeping congress from authorizing it- like they did in this case!
If you don't like living in a country with a constitution that puts the war power in the legislature why don't you go live in some other?
As well as the constitution puts the power of war into the hands of congress, it also states that all citizens should be allowed to have "assistance of counsel for his/her defense". Does this not mean anything anymore? I could care less about non citizens but the people of the USA should have the guarentee of the costitution.
Rights to a jury trial, etc. are constitutionally guaranteed in criminal trials. These guys aren't being tried. They aren't accused of being criminals- just combatants.
Padilla has a lawyer anyway ( and from the circumstances of his capture on US soil that's not a bad idea), I don't think Hamdi has a lawyer- but then he was captured armed in the heat of combat overseas.
I live in a nation with a constitution that calls for due process and I like that. I want to keep that provision. You can't pick and choose what parts of the constitution to enforce today.
The only way to come close to making what they are doing legal requires the following:
Congress defines what makes someone an enemy combatant
Executive branch brings charge and a trial is held with a jury to decide if defendant does, in fact, meet the definition specified by Congress.
Then, and only then is a person an enemy combatant. Whether war or peace time, whether you like the guy or not, that is the requirement or we are no longer free.
They should be placed in camps!
They most certainly should not! I'm a taxpaying American citizen. I believe that all amendments to the Constitution are sacrosanct. But of greatest importance is this:
What makes you think I want to pay one thin dime so that a bunch of liberal political prisoners can drink their caffe late every morning?
Jesus! Priorities, people. Priorities!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Baaaaa!!
First of all, four or five years ago there were still two World Trade Center towers gracing the NYC skyline. Second, I've seen and heard lots of debate/worry about this in conservative circles. I personally have huge reservations about it.
-- Joe Sheep
I assume that your process would only apply to US Citizens?
"Executive branch brings charge and a trial is held with a jury to decide if defendant does, in fact, meet the definition specified by Congress. "
Nope. Not in the Constitution and has never been done.
The Habeas Corpus petition- and due process- is all they get , the court decides if they are rightly held under the congress's definition of combatant.
You may not like this but it is Constitutional and it is arguably a fair balance of liberty and security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.