Posted on 07/12/2002 9:24:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) --
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
But you don't care- you're not "irrational" LOL!
Though, frankly, it seems to be that you don't approve of the Founders putting the War Power in the congress to give to the president- which they have done.
What suspension of our right to due process are you claiming has happened?
Please- be specific.
Rumsfeld January 27, 2002 : "There is a definition of what a lawful combatant is and there are four or five criteria that people look to historically. There's precedent to this, and there is a reasonable understanding of what an unlawful combatant is.
The characteristics of the individuals that have been captured is that they are unlawful combatants, not lawful combatants. That is why they are characterized as detainees and not prisoners of war. The al Qaeda are so obviously a part of a terrorist network as opposed to being part of an army -- they didn't go around with uniforms with their weapons in public display, with insignia and behave in a manner that an army behaves in; they went around like terrorists, and that's a very different thing. "
Here's a Founder, Patrick Henry, on the appropriate treatment of unlawful combatants:
"Those who declare war against the human race may be struck out of existence as soon as they are apprehended. He was not executed according to those beautiful legal ceremonies which are pointed out by the laws in criminal cases. The enormity of his crimes did not entitle him to it.
I am truly a friend to legal forms and methods; but, sir, the occasion warranted the measure.
A pirate, an outlaw, or a common enemy to all mankind, may be put to death at any time. It is justified by the laws of nature and nations. "
Our Founders were no fools.
I say he took a dump on his right's and his citizenship.
Tough luck missah tally-ban.
You got that right. These people that keep protecting my rights are going to get me killed one of these days.
The chief conclusion of the ruling seems to be that the judiciary traditionally defers to the Executive and Legislature on military matters. Thus the judge sidesteps the issue of whether the actions are in fact constitutional.
I think it is an appropriate ruling, but it leaves the legality of government actions the unsettled.
But the appelate court ruling discusses what should be considered by the lower court- the Constitution and the precedents- that's what I found so informative. These points made by the Appelate court are what the lower court has to bear in mind when it next rules.
"The chief conclusion of the ruling seems to be that the judiciary traditionally defers to the Executive and Legislature on military matters."
But:
"In dismissing, we ourselves would be summarily embracing a sweeping proposition -- namely that, with no meaningful judicial review, any American citizen alleged to be an enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without charges or counsel on the government's say-so. "
I think judge Wilkinson has pretty much told the lower court to give Hamdi a monitored lawyer to help prepare his habeas corpus plea- but not to grant it if the government shows that Hamdi was one of the group the president was authorized to use military force on under the congressional resolution.
"...if Hamdi is indeed an "enemy combatant" who was captured during hostilities in Afghanistan, the government's present detention of him is a lawful one. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (holding that both lawful and unlawful combatants, regardless of citizenship, "are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 313-14 (1946) (same); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946) (same)."
This is what Hamdi's habeas corpus right is IMO: to have a court decide "if Hamdi is indeed an "enemy combatant"", with deference to the other branches, but to fact and logic too.
If the court does not believe he is an enemy combatant, they can and must set him free.
Wilkinson does seem to write that the matter should have been handled by the District Court. In reading the ruling, it is surprising that the District Court made such a poor ruling. It appears that the government may have contributed by not making a clear case.
The government has sought to file as an ex parte, supplemental attachment to its brief before this court "a sealed declaration discussing the military's determination to detain petitioner Hamdi as an enemy combatant." [...] This declaration is factual in nature. As such, it should come first before the district court, not the court of appeals.I'll have to admit I'm confused by the government's decision to consider Hamdi an enemy combatant, but not Walker.
Even traitors have constitutional rights.
Article III, 3.In treason cases from Aaron Burr on down, the courts have ruled that traitors are not without rights. Read Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1997 comments on the topic here:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
The ATF may have thought the same about the Branch Davidians in Waco, and Randy and Vicky Weaver up at Ruby Ridge. Be careful what precedents you allow to be set -- you have no control over who they will ultimately be used on
The killing of Spann made the difference for Walker. What a harrowing example to show children to be careful who they hang out with!
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.