Two senators questioning detention without charges [Bush-hater, John McCain, at it again]

Miami Herald Online ^ | Wednesday, June 12, 2002 | BY JAMES KUHNHENN AND CASSIO FURTADO

[steve-b]

I'm giving Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I believe he has the moral clarity not to abuse his position of power.

Even stipulating that, Bush will not be the President forever.

[steve-b]

A street thug and likely high school dropout became a nuclear weapons researcher for Al Qaeda? Wow! Now I'm really scared! What a bunch of hogwash!

Remember the documents our troops found showing that al-Qaeda's research included an article from The Journal of Irreproducible Results describing steps such as "Wash your hands thoroughly after handling plutonium"?

There is a threat here, but these guys are not ten feet tall and bulletproof.

[callisto]

Agreed. In post #110 I stated,"I feel we must do what we need to do to protect our citizens, but with an eye towards the possiblility that these changes may be misused in the future by some who are not so morally clear."

[steve-b]

He can be be tried, convicted, put away, executed, never to be heard from again, all consistent with the Constitution and without jeopardizing any valuable "sources or methods."

Some people seem to think that the problem of squaring Constitutional protections with protection of information sources just materialized out of nowhere on 11 September 2001. The fact is that we've done it before (e.g. in Mob prosecutions against people who, frankly, are about ten times smarter than the average Jihad Johnny) and can do it again.

[steve-b]

That said, the suspect is represented by counsel, and he(she) will soon file a writ of habeas corpus. Then some Federal judge will rule on the legality of the administration's actions. Nothing unconstitutional here.

Which is precisely my point -- with a bit of work (inspired by the flak the administration started to take when it was discovered that, oh yeah, we're holding this guy indefinitely without charges) what needs to be done can be done properly and legally.

[cracker]

Uhhh... two things that get overlooked:

1) QUINN was vague at best in it's defense of military courts for US citizens.
2) SCOTUS explcitly noted in QUINN that part of the authority to use military justice against the unlawful combatants was that there had been a Congressional declaration of war. Congress has not done so for 9-11.

The mere fact that the defendant has a lawyer who will file his petition for habeus corpus does not mean that the government is not violating the Constitution. The detention is unlawful.

[steve-b]

Are you at all concerned that Padiillo bears an uncanny resemblance to John Doe #2? What if the real reason that Robert Mueller is doing this (Ashcroft is just Mueller's toady) is to shelter a guy whom they don't want to prosecute because of what would come out about OKC bombing.

Personally, I think this is tinfoil-hat stuff. However, the fact that extra-legal government actions inspire tinfoil-hat looniness (as opposed to rational skepticism) is yet another reason to avoid them.

[steve-b]

I'm concerned with the number of lunatics posting on FR lately.

Naaahhh... too easy....

[bigdog]

what needs to be done can be done properly and legally

My point is: it is being done legally and properly.

Where's the fire?

BD

[hobbes1]

'There is going to be a lot of public concern about how you treat a United States citizen,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a former prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ``I think that guy's got to be kept in detention, but I think the definition is a congressional matter.''

Like....Not Proven, Sen. Sphincter?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., added that ``the attorney general has to come up with a rationale for why they're doing this.

Ummm, because a known criminal was ratted out as a cohort by an AlQueda in detention, and returned to the US with thousands of dollars, that cannot be accounted for, Sen. McAnus?

[Aedammair]

But if they do get a nuke and kill what, 3,000,000 people, do we then trash our Constitution? NO!!! Sorry, about that, you 3,000,000 dead people, but if you're true Americans,...

Ditto to the sentiment in your reply to old what's his name. Additionally, did you notice his paradoxical proclivity for determing who is a real american and who is not? And he suggested others take a high school civic's course? I suppose that what they mean when they say it takes all kinds.

[hobbes1]

He makes dane look like an intellectual.

OUCH!!!!!

[McGavin999]

These two act like the guy was plotting the murder of a couple of people. Apparently they're not smart enough to figure out that the guy was plotting the explosion of a dirty bomb that would have killed thousands and contaminated an entire area of the city.

Too bad the administration didn't say he was plotting to explode the bomb in the middle of the gallery of the senate building, then these two idiots might be singing another tune.

[callisto]

185 posted by steve-b
on 6/12/02 2:15 PM Eastern
Which is precisely my point -- with a bit of work (inspired by the flak the administration started to take when it was discovered that, oh yeah, we're holding this guy indefinitely without charges) what needs to be done can be done properly and legally.

---

Posted by Iwo Jima
On News/Activism ^ Jun 12 11:13 AM #117 of 184
The very reason that our wise Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution is because they knew that men are not angels and that we cannot rely on "electing good men to office" to defend our hard-won freedoms. They foresaw the very type of situation which we are currently experiencing in the war against terror.

This is not a hard concept. The Constitution does not allow the government to do what is currently doing. Abandoning the Constitution is not "progress," but just the opposite. It is a retreat to the bad old days when we had no Constitution and no freedom and were under the thumb of an all-powerful government.

---

Posted by scalia_#1
On News/Activism ^ Jun 12 10:19 AM #83 of 184
The problem is that the Bush's Exec. Order establishing detention of unlawful combatants applies only to non-citizens, and while Quirin permits the detention of citizens and their trial in military courts, the Commission that FDR appointed was not limited to non-citizens. If we're going to do this right, the President needs to amend his EO to include citizens, or else Padilla's lawyer will likely win on the writ.

Weighing Iowa Jima's and scalia_#1's comments above with your statement I'll concede that there should be a better way to procede and still maintain intelligence security.

But what if the reason for this man being held since 5/08 was dependent upon defering his release for probable intel and securing other terrorists from gaining the knowledge of his detainment? How should our government procede in this situation so as not to aid the terrorists with our intel, operations and sources while strictly adhering to the Constitution with no leniency towards safeguarding our security, even temporarily as during previous times of war?

[bigdog]

The detention is unlawful.

Your opinion is duly noted and respected.

All we have is a difference of opinion. What do you say we let a Federal judge rule?

In the mean time, I see no Constitutional concerns.

BD

[steve-b]

The initial reaction was, naturally, based on the initially available information. It now appears that the administration either never actually took, or has backed away from, the position that indefinite detention of citizens is an option.

[Iwo Jima]

But what if the reason for this man being held since 5/08 was dependent upon defering his release for probable intel and securing other terrorists from gaining the knowledge of his detainment?

I don't know whatn is meant by "probable intel," but if the reason for holding him is so that the other terrorists wouldn't know that he was being held, then why did Ashcroft hold a press conference to announce that he was being held? That's pretty inconsistent, isn't it? Now that that cat is out of the bag, I guess we can try him for treason and whatever criminal charges his acts warrant.

[Iwo Jima]

I'm sure you're not positing that the Supreme Court is the indisputable arbiter and repository of truth, and infallible interpreter of the Constitution.

It is true that the Supreme Court can be wrong and frequently in my opinion has been. When the Supreme Court reverses itself, as has been done and should be done more often IMO, then obviously it was wrong at one time or another.

But our system of jurisprudence has existed for the last 200 years based on the recognition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. Until we come up with another system, I plan to go with this one.

To me, it's like an umpire at a baseball game -- he may make a wrong call, but it's still his call to make.

[Aedammair]

Fair enough.