Who Made George W. Bush Our King?He Can Designate Any of Us an Enemy Combatant

The Village Voice ^ | July 25, 2003 | Nat Hentoff

[dirtboy]

He's out of favor with management, not sure if it's permanent or a stint in the cooler.

[George W. Bush]

And the evidence for that is?

It is forthcoming, we assume. Actually, he was taken into custody. No one has proven he fired on American troops. But if he was armed and in the presence of enemy troops, that's pretty compelling evidence alone.

At any rate, such is the assumption in BushCo declaring him an 'enemy combatant'. Combatants are, generally speaking, engaged in combat.

We'll see if they can prove their case.

[CobaltBlue]

Hamdi has been denied judicial review of the facts in the case. His lawyer has not been able to meet with him in order to present his version of the facts. The case is going forward on the pleadings.

[CobaltBlue]

I don't believe that the Geneva Convention applies to Hamdi, and neither does the US Government. The position that the administration is taking is that Al Qaeda terrorists in Aghanistan are not enemy combatants because they were not fighting for the legitimate government in Afghanistan. The Taliban was nothing but thugs.

The war against terrorism will probably not be over in our lifetimes. By your logic, Hamdi can be detained forever.

There are countries in the world where people may be detained forever without contact with their lawyers or their family or the judicial system but America has never been one of them, until now.

[jwalsh07]

Hamdi has been denied judicial review of the facts in the case.

The facts of the case have been presented to the district judge in Virginia. The question is, who has the constitutional authority to identify Hamdi as a enemy comatant, a judge in Virginia or the boots on the ground and their CIC. Constitutional law gives great deference in that respect ot the CIC which is why the fourth circuit keeps whacking the judge in Virginia.

His lawyer has not been able to meet with him in order to present his version of the facts.

That's correct and perfectly constitutional until hostilities cease in Afghanistan.

The case is going forward on the pleadings.

Hopefully Hamdi loses and is eventually tried by a military tribunal for treason.

[jwalsh07]

I don't believe that the Geneva Convention applies to Hamdi, and neither does the US Government. The position that the administration is taking is that Al Qaeda terrorists in Aghanistan are not enemy combatants because they were not fighting for the legitimate government in Afghanistan. The Taliban was nothing but thugs.

Then you should read the IV Geneva Convention regarding same. Part 1 , Article 5 speaks to saboteurs and spies, unlawful combatants and the ability of states to hold them incommunicado until hostilities cease.

The war against terrorism will probably not be over in our lifetimes. By your logic, Hamdi can be detained forever.

By my logic, Hamdi's forever would be much shorter than that. However, constitutionally speaking, keeping Hamdi in the stockade for the duration of hostilities in Afghanistan is a no brainer consistent with 227 years of American history.

There are countries in the world where people may be detained forever without contact with their lawyers or their family or the judicial system but America has never been one of them, until now.<

BS. Argue the facts or don't argue. The violin section is two blocks left.

Your equating Hamdi with a common criminal is bereft of logic and honesty.

And by the way, if the Bush administration is sou out of control and stomping on the feet of our civil liberiteis why is it that only two traitors, Padilla and Hamdi, have been denied there so rights?

[CobaltBlue]

I am not the one who argues that Hamdi isn't an enemy combatant. It's the official position of the administration vis-a-vis the men held in Gitmo. You could look it up.

I have great respect for Bush and Ashcroft, but I don't believe that they are perfect and incapable of mistakes. My personal opinion is that they've made a mistake.

I have no doubt that the SCOTUS will review and I will be interested to see what they say.

[Torie]

Sabertooth was banned. Pity.

[dead]

. . .and Nat is a Liberal of the highest order. . .probably an admirer of Stalin as well; for sure Fidel . . .

You should attempt to have a casual grasp of the facts, before blathering your opinions.

Having interviewed Cubans who survived Castro's gulags, I have never understood or respected the parade of American entertainers, politicians and intellectuals who travel to Cuba to be entranced by this ruthless dictator who, for me, has all the charisma of a preening thug, akin to any killer on "The Sopranos."

These Castro-philes are among those who discredit liberalism because they're unable to recognize and be repelled by unbridled evil.

- Nat Hentoff - I still think of Elian

He also regularly cites the embrace of Stalin (along with Mao) by liberal America has another example of their blindness towards obvious evil.

[cricket]

". . .you are right and he is not even an admirer of Fidel; I stand corrected; I was confusing him with someone else. Hentoff stands closer to the new 'tradition' of Chris Hitchens et al. . ."

from my post #45 to B.Knotts; correcting my post of #20 to JimKress. . .

but will say it again; Sorry; I made a 'mistake of identity'; and I did correct it. . .but there are no erasures on FR :%)

[dead]

And I apologize for being snippy about it.

[cricket]

"And I apologize for being snippy about it."

'it happens'. . .threads get long; can't read them all. . .tempers flare. . . :^)

[beachn4fun]

because he is an American citizen.

Interesting statement. Have you read "American Jihad?" Many terrorist are "American citizens" either by birth or by their parents becoming one. Yet, they plot and plan and fund terror. And, use our Constitution to protect themselves.

[TomB]

A thankless job jw, you are doing it well.

Keep up the good work.

[MissAmericanPie]

I don't worry about Bush abusing this system, but it is open to abuse and set up like the U.N. has set up it's kangaroo Court.

The Patriot Act will be abused eventually, given Bill Clintons use of the IRS to attack his enemies, I don't see Hillary having a problem using the Patriot Act to do the same.

The alarms went off for me because of the manner in which it was rammed through the congress and senate neither of which were presented the Bill to read until after they voted to approve it. Then the sirens began to sound when someone finally did get around to reading it and found out that congress and the public were lied to. The worse and most invasive parts of the Patriot Act do not sunshine in four years or in four hundred years.

In the past, in times of war, things were instituted temporarily for the security of the nation, and one could look at the Patriot Act as being one of those things that will be cast aside when the need to keep terrorist from using our rights and priviledges against us to escape justice or that will enable them to carry out their attacks is a thing of the past.

But why the lie? Why say it's temporary when it's not? And why is it set up like the U.N. has set up it's court? And why did the government only protect elected officials and military from the U.N. court while leaving the ordinary citizen still in danger of finding themselves under the authority of the U.N. court?

Lots of questions, no answers, I'm glad someone is taking a look at this mess. We should expect the congress to repeal it and replace it with something that actually does sunshine as advertised.