Judge orders names of all detainees in 9/11 probe released

MSNBC ^

[Demidog]

First off, all of them are foreigners.

Can you show me in the constitution where it says rights are only due citizens?

They are being detained in the same manner foreigners are detained all over the world - as you would be, in fact, in France, Spain, Germany, UK, Canada

Our constitution makes us different then those socialist enterprises. It's why people flock here to enjoy true liberty. Or at least they used to. Now we are like the unfree nations all over the world. Looks like the terrorists win unless we come to our senses.

[Let's Roll]

Will cite same, when enemy abides by same - you're funny.

[Demidog]

The constitution makes no distinctions between those who break the law and those who don't. Our own government doesn't abide by the constutitution. They are the very persons who are bound by it and take oaths affirming that they will do so. It doesn't bother you in the least that they don't.

Personally I hope you have a family member who suffers from the same fate so I can see your complete turnabout in attitude but that would probably be too much to ask....

[Let's Roll]

Calm down and try to deal with what is happening instead of what might happen if Hitlery were president etc.

[Demidog]

What might happen? It's happening now. Wake up.

[FreeTheHostages]

I'm not saying you're a lefty. I'm saying you're wrong on this point. As in I can't imagine how a good conservative wouldn't stand behind the Bush admin on this point. So sorry, didn't want to be name-calling, that's not my style and don't want to suggest you're a lefty. Back on to substance:

You say it's amusing to think that Al Qaeda might not know who we have in custody. No it's not. Especially because of their cell structure and the disruption to the leadership, it's fair to assume that they might not know. Military's going to know more about this than you or me, I'm willing to trust them on this.

Do keep in mind that these prisoners are under judicial supervision and have the option of having an attorney. I don't see why the ACLU needs to have their names other than to start throwing a lot of political mud.

[Demidog]

As in I can't imagine how a good conservative wouldn't stand behind the Bush admin on this point.

Good conservatives don't watch Bush sign the patriot act and still believe he's a conservative.

You say it's amusing to think that Al Qaeda might not know who we have in custody. No it's not. Especially because of their cell structure and the disruption to the leadership

Really? Since you know so much about the leadership and which ones we've arrested and what their cell structure is like, please tell me because I've not yet seen a single article or explanation published.

I don't see why the ACLU needs to have their names other than to start throwing a lot of political mud.

What needs to happen is the charges need to be published.

[FreeTheHostages]

Interesting Crossfire Monday. Julian Epstein, democratic shill, took your position. Ann Coulter took mine. She said that Judge Kessler shouldn't interfere with Ashcroft doing his job, that all the detainees had access to counsel, and that the names should be released just so that the ACLU can beginning suing and making up facts.

Joe Di Genova (another solid Republican) came in in support of my position, and against yours. He said:

What's going on here is I'm amazed is that this federal judge and Julian think that they know enough to second-guess the decisions of the secretary of defense and the attorney general, who have access to intelligence information about what's going on with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The problem here is that Julian is making the same assumption that regrettably Judge Kessler did. She pooh-poohed the notion that the government's affidavits claimed that there were legitimate reasons for keeping these names secret.

I think these solid Republicans, who are also good lawyers, made my argument better than I did. Despite name-calling by the Democratic left, there are no constitutional violations here. None, nada, zip. The government does under the constitution have the power to detail war detainees. They're already under judicial supervision and have the right of access to counsel. There is, in short, no constitutional right for Judge Kessler or the ACLU to have the names too. The argument is just silly. I often find people who want to win an argument saying that there position is the only "constitutional" one: you've done that here. It's a silly argument: even Judge Kessler didn't claim the constitution as the basis to turn the names over to the ACLU.

I just add to the mix these observations: I have some very good bedfellows on my side in this argument and you have Democratic shills. Think again. Think again.

[Demidog]

Despite name-calling by the Democratic left, there are no constitutional violations here.

Of course there are. Several. The most glaring is that none are charged with crimes.

[FreeTheHostages]

The government can hold people without charging them with crimes under the Constitution for several reasons. War detainees, material witnesses, etc. In each case, as in this one, it is under judicial supervision. So a judge knows the name and is watching too. The only issue is whether the ACLU has a constitutional right to watch too!! Even the ACLU didn't argue that, only you are: they claimed they were entitled to the information under FOIA. The law is not what one person wishes it could be so they could win an argument: the constitution is what it is.

[Demidog]

The government can hold people without charging them with crimes under the Constitution for several reasons.

Show me where it says that.

[FreeTheHostages]

Why? Because like you'd believe me if you read the Constituional section on the executive's war powers. Forget it: you reached your conclusion without even reading the Constitution, so I'm not going to let you be the judge of what it says. I've read it, I work with it every day, Ann Coulter's a constituional lawyer and she's read it. I totally don't have to debate you on what it says: go read it. I think the fact that even the ACLU isn't willing to say their request for disclosure is based on the constitution is a good indication that you don't have a case, but I'm totally not here to persuade you or teach you the law. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. What's a citizen to do? Does everyone have to go to law school to understand this? Nope: I agree with Ann Coulter: it's time to trust Ashcroft and your government on this one. Not everything the executive does in wartime should be jumped upon: especially in a time of war, I expect good conservatives without law degrees not to be so quick to attack Ashcroft.

[Demidog]

So you can't show me but want to blame me for your shortcomings in constitutional understanding. Typical.

Under the constitution the President has extremely limited war powers. The war powers act itself is unconstitutional.

[FreeTheHostages]

Oh, I could show you. But I don't think I could persuade someone who is so quick to conclude that they know more than John Ashcroft from the get-go. I don't trust your distrust. I could show you, but I couldn't persuade you, I'm gathering. I hope the fact that even the ACLU wouldn't make a constitutional argument might leave you with some lingering doubt.

Ted Olson, the SG, and AG Ashcroft, are fine technical lawyers. They have their political points of view. But neither of them are a fool. As Ann Coulter said, is this is the *most* that the liberals can complain of here, then AG Ashcroft isn't doing his job. Touche, Anne.

[Demidog]

Oh, I could show you.

You've had two opportunities so far and cannot. I don't believe you.