A clear and present danger: Ashcroft scheme simply chilling

HoustonChronicle.com ^ | Aug. 16, 2002, 7:49PM | Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C.

[jwalsh07]

Battlefield conditions? Am I missing something?

Clearly.

[ninenot]

who are captured in combat on the side of foreign armies?

HRC has already defined anti-abortion protesters as 'terrorists.'

As pointed out above, she can also define anyone else as 'terrorist,' as well, and incarcerate at will.

THAT will precipitate a very interesting crisis, as there are a whole lot of LEO's that will NOT enforce illegal orders. Hmmmmm

[donozark]

You are not following the thread. I have already addressed these issues several times. I am not the one that ruled in Ex Parte Quirin. SCOTUS did. But again, those declared "enemy combatants" do NOT have the same rights as US citizen defendants charged in criminal cases.

Again, it is NOT my call. It was SCOTUS, 1942 that differentiated mere citizens from enemy combatants, not I. hell, I wasn't even born...

[jwalsh07]

As pointed out above, she can also define anyone else as 'terrorist,' as well, and incarcerate at will.

No you can't. Absent a Congressional Authorization to conduct war on an enemy the precedents don't apply nor does the Constitutions granting of extroadinary power to the CIC during wartime for what I thought was readily apparent reasons.

[NittanyLion]

Did the Federal government continue this practice after the War? No.

In WWII, when we finished of Japan the war was over. When will the WOT be over? Heck, we haven't even declared a real war, and our government has told us we're in it for the long run. IMO, the practice will be continued with no end in sight.

[Whilom]

Civilian leaders of the military rightly know that we hold them accountable for handling of captured terrorists and suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean we should make them announce to the world every Monday morning the identity of everyone held and the content of their interrogations. That doesn't mean we should open these holding and interrogation centers to every undercover PLO lawyer, serving as a conduit to and from the captured. That information figures importantly in the prosecution of the war. In past wars, that information became available when it was no longer critical to the war effort. So should it nowadays. It is very likely that mistakes will be made in the handling of the captured, as they were in previous wars. Those mistakes will be revealed in time, and the public will decide the proper penalty. If a Middle Easterner is picked up and questioned after leaving a paper trail of banking records showing his possible involvement in the flow of money to Al-Qaeda, and that person is held and interrogated for weeks or months isolated from any help from Al-Qaeda and its political supporters, I don't think the public will be outraged when they learn of it. If a Norwegian national is picked up and held and interrogated for weeks or months because he was overheard to say that Bush is all wrong and that he, personally, hopes the voters choose a Democrat in 2004, there'll be hell to pay. The first example is a proper use of authority during war. The second is an egregious excess not to be tolerated.

[ninenot]

one; by one we topple those regimes

...and just how many 'regimes' should we topple?

I thought Clinton was nuts for permanently emplacing American troops as 'peacekeepers;' YOU, on the other hand, will be happy to add 3, 6, 12, or ? MORE countries to our list of dependents.

Perhaps you should study the history of the British Empire (there used to be one) who also placed troops all over the world.

They lost all those possessions/serfdoms.

Thank God I am not one of your grandchildren--I wouldn't want to have to clean up your mess.

[ninenot]

There's no connection between Saddam and 911

Are you morally certain of this assertion?

In addition, while there have been no more terrorist activities (well, maybe the anthrax was...) to this point, I am not so certain that the 'sleepers' are not waiting for our attack on Saddam, at which time they will pull a few other stunts.

I am VERY willing to force the President to conclude the war when the time has come; OTOH, I am not certain that the terroristas are by any means "done."

[j271]

donozark

My apologies for what may appear to be hairsplitting, but it is necessary when discussing legal matters.

The phrase "enemy combatants" appears nowhere in the holdings of Ex Parte Quirin. Please refer to post 163 for the link.

[donozark]

"Dirty Bomb Suspect has fewer Legal Rights," off CNN.com. June 11. Also, other links for June 10 similar article.

[ninenot]

Once he joined the military of a recognized foreign power, he lost his citizenship

Citation, please?

THere are at least a few Americans who joined the Israeli Army and NEVER lost their American citizenship.

[ninenot]

ABUSE??? For crying out loud, buy a few guns of your own. Cheaper, quicker, and MUCH more satisfying than an attorney's services.

[donozark]

Not my terms/words. See post 190. CNN-Professor John McGinnis, NW Univ.

[donozark]

Oh, and YES the term ENEMY COMBATANT appears in Ex Parte Quirin. 8.

[atlaw]

Your comment:"Hamdi was gathered up in Afghanistan with his fellow Al Qaeda pals. Padilla was picked up at Chicago's O'Hare airport after lying about the 10K in cash he came back from Pakistan with. When he left he had only his hands in his pockets, he lied about the amount of cash and he attended some "Al Qaeda" seminars while on holiday. Whats significant about this is that AlQaeda declared war on the US in 1993 at the WTC. That fact has gone right over your head ever since."

My comment: "Battlefield conditions? Am I missing something?"

Your comment: "Clearly."

Fine, Padilla was detained in Chicago. Chicago is not generally known as a battlefield, even in this war. But if it is to be now represented as such, it certainly extends the definition in a way that I am not comfortable with. Battlefield, by this definition, seems to be a euphemism for "wherever the heck we find you," including the town you and I are living in.

Furthermore, you argue the evidence, and if the evidence is that strong, why isn't the government arguing the evidence? There is a dramatic disconnect here. On the one hand, the evidence is so bloody obvious that Padilla ought to be put out to pasture without further consideration. On the the other hand, the government is arguing that there is no need to present evidence of any kind, because ... well, because we're the executive branch and the rest of the pesky branches can go to hell. If the SOB is that obviously guilty, try him and execute him. It's not that hard. Please explain to me why we need to set a remarkably dangerous precedent to deal with this guy.

[donozark]

AG Ashcroft is not setting a precedent. See Ex Parte Quirin. 1942.

[ninenot]

OK. Let's not use the term 'incarcerate.' Let's use the term 'victimize.' As in, for example, the woman who expressed an opinion about X42 during a parade in Chicago. As in, for example, the not-yet-complete victimization of the ALLEGED killer of Slepian. As in IRS audits until your bank account is exhausted.

Victimize is a better term. Yup. THEN incarceration, after the FBI comes up with "evidence" which fits the prosecutor's needs.

[jwalsh07]

"Dirty Bomb Suspect has fewer Legal Rights,"

[donozark]

That link doesn't work. no criticism here-but I believe you have a summation of the case conclusions. Not the actual case Ex Parte Quirin, in it's entirety. I got it off caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. "Enemy Combatant" appears.8

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

How can we claim that democracy is the greatest form of government when we show it in action by using taliban like tactics such as suspending all the rights of a person and arbitrarly holding them for as long as the government sees fit?

Because we're right, dammit!    </sarcasm>