Replies

Please, cb. When I said "uniformly," I meant uniformly for all persons, not for all national circumstances. The Constitution does provide for suspension of habeas corpus under conditions of war or insurrection; it was a specific allowance for the indefinite detention of prisoners of war. You might say it's the whole point of classing someone as an enemy combatant.

With regard to the timeline cited by Duke, while it does reinforce the picture of Padilla as a lowlife no decent person would associate with, the only thing there pertinent to his current detention is the allegation that he associated with al-Qaeda. But war is an armed confrontation between states. As al-Qaeda is not a state but an underworld organization, and the United States is not at war by Congressional declaration, it is not clear to me, nor to many others, that this sort of guilt-by-association is sufficient to warrant a classification of Padilla as an "enemy combatant."

The business about "providing a lawyer to every terrorist" is a straw man, and a cheap straw man at that. An "enemy combatant" is a man taken prisoner under combat conditions or immediately after, who is either in enemy uniform or has been seen fighting against one's own forces. The Geneva Convention and the traditions of warfare sanction this sort of detention, at a battlefield officer's discretion.

Padilla, a lone individual at the time of his capture, was arrested, not taken prisoner on the battlefield. He was in no uniform. Unless I've missed something, he was in possession of no contraband. The knock against him, never made as a formal charge, was that he'd associated with members of al-Qaeda. It sounds very bad -- always assuming that the government was accurate in its identification of these other al-Qaeda members and is being honest about the claim -- but it's still not illegal. Unless the treason clause applies -- "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States" -- we lack an appropriate standard by which to defend this detention. (And if it does, then charge the bastard! Don't grant him the dignity of a captured soldier!)

A man isn't a terrorist just because someone in the government calls him one. He's a terrorist because he's demonstrably committed, or conspired to commit, acts of indiscriminate violence against a civilian population. An individual held by the government under the rules of warfare should have demonstrated something more ominous about himself than just traveling abroad and consorting with scum -- or we'd have to incarcerate Dan Rather and most of his colleagues in broadcast journalism! Not that that's necessarily a bad idea, mind you.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Your thoughtful comments are valid for a reasonable man during reasonable times.These are not reasonable times!Padilla left the U.S.to enlist in the forces of a declared enemy ostensibly returning with the plan to do harm to many of our citizens, "somewhere,sometime", through the use of a radioactive dirty bomb. He was obviously in the planing stage of his goal.

Perhaps an over-simplification, but please consider the following analogy: You and your loved ones have a valid threat of bodily harm from a fanatic who has vowed to kill you. He shows up in your neighborhood. What will you do...wait for him to do something before you act? Obviously as a man of reason you would not run out in the street and kill him but you have an alternative... you have the option to remove this fanatic from a position of threat, until such time as he is no longer a danger to yourself or loved ones.

Personally I find this an acceptable option.

"With regard to the timeline cited by Duke, while it does reinforce the picture of Padilla as a lowlife no decent person would associate with, the only thing there pertinent to his current detention is the allegation that he associated with al-Qaeda."

So those who only "associate" with al-Qaeda should be granted entry into the United States, should not be detained or questioned about their "association", and should be provided a lawyer at government expense to ensure their rights are not trampled?

"But war is an armed confrontation between states. As al-Qaeda is not a state but an underworld organization, and the United States is not at war by Congressional declaration, it is not clear to me, nor to many others, that this sort of guilt-by-association is sufficient to warrant a classification of Padilla as an "enemy combatant.""

We are at war despite all the rhetoric. You may disagree with the format chosen to declare war, but it was declared none the less.

"The business about "providing a lawyer to every terrorist" is a straw man, and a cheap straw man at that."

If this is such a "strawman", then why do you insist upon a court appearance?

"An "enemy combatant" is a man taken prisoner under combat conditions or immediately after, who is either in enemy uniform or has been seen fighting against one's own forces. The Geneva Convention and the traditions of warfare sanction this sort of detention, at a battlefield officer's discretion."

Or the discretion of the Commander in Chief. So what's your point?

"Padilla, a lone individual at the time of his capture, was arrested, not taken prisoner on the battlefield."

And, subsequently, taken into custody by the military. Regardless of the path, he's where he should be.

"He was in no uniform. Unless I've missed something, he was in possession of no contraband. The knock against him, never made as a formal charge, was that he'd associated with members of al-Qaeda."

"Formal charge"? There you go again, trying to make a legal case out of this. I thought my argument about providing lawyers was a "strawman".

"A man isn't a terrorist just because someone in the government calls him one. He's a terrorist because he's demonstrably committed, or conspired to commit, acts of indiscriminate violence against a civilian population."

Now, that's a "strawman". The government didn't just "call him" a terrorist. The man has gone out of his way to demonstrate his terrorist roots.

"An individual held by the government under the rules of warfare should have demonstrated something more ominous about himself than just traveling abroad and consorting with scum"

One must assume that if nineteen or twenty young muslim males with links to al-Qaeda, carrying extremist Islamic tracts and boxcutters, showed up at an airport, you'd demand they be allowed on the airplanes. After all, what else had they done but "traveled abroad and consorted with scum"? Why should they be denied their right to fly with out due process?

>Padilla, a lone individual at the time of his capture, was arrested, not taken prisoner on the battlefield.

Unless I'm mistaken, I observed a battlefield in NYC. The battlefield is here.

> But war is an armed confrontation between states. As al-Qaeda is not a state but an underworld organization, and the United States is not at war

This not-a-state just took out a third of Manhattan at the start of this not-a-war. For the past 10 months we have not been fighting this 'underworld organization,' not-at-war-with the US using Special Forces, B-52s and aircraft carriers.

You are so caught up in your Aristotilian categorizations and old conceptions of what a war is 'supposed' to be that you have missed the plain fact that war has begun whether you agree to it or not.