Posted on 08/18/2002 12:31:24 PM PDT by BellStar
Understatement of the epoch.
Put it in lights and wear it with pride.
A sock it to 'im *bump*!
Now you're getting it. Your town, my town, any town USA is the battlefield. 9/11 proves it and so does the anthrax incidents.
Furthermore, you argue the evidence, and if the evidence is that strong, why isn't the government arguing the evidence?
I don't know how strong the evidence is. What I know is that Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Padilla was arrested at O'Hare for lying to customs and carrying in more cash than is allowed by law. The Justice Department states in their filings that PAdilla met with Al Qaeda.
For me, this is enought evidence to decalre these guys enemy comabatants and for me to call them traitors,taht is if their allegiance was ever to America and in Hamdi's case I suspect that isn't true.
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.
Perhaps the only law that Padilla has broken is one that would put him on the street forthwith. The JD's view is that he is an enemy combatant. I agree. Now you ask why not try him and be done with it?
My answer is this. When the One Eyed Sheik was tried in NY for the first WTC bombing, bin Laden found out that intelligence knew his cell phone number. He threw the cell phone away. There was also volumes of evidence regarding the structure of the WTC and this found its way into the public domain. The rest is history.
Padilla and Hamdi have not had Habeus Corpus suspended, their cases are being litigated. Generous enough if you ask me.
Can you clarify what you are talking about? The Rules of War and Ex-Parte Quirin do not address the subjects you are referencing.
HRC is a power-mad woman who has made it clear that anti-abortion protesters are TERRORISTS
Your analogy is lacking. For the situations to be analagous Congree would have to draw up a resolution, pursuant to the War Powers Act????, declaring right to lifers as the enemy in a war. Clearly nutty.
IMO, the definition of "unlawful combatant" from Quirin is in these passages, with underlining showing the relevant points:
By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatantsSpecification 1 states that petitioners 'being enemies of the United States and acting for ... the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United States ... and went behind such lines, contrary to the law of war, in civilian dress ... for the purpose of committing ... hostile acts, and, in particular, to destroy certain war industries, war utilities and war materials within the United States'.
Nothing is given as material evidence for the detainment of Padilla. Just an attempt to dismiss the case on technical questions about jurisdiction - the respondents have no possession of the body and the one that did was outside the courts jurisdiction. The bringer of the Habeas Corpus failed the next friend test.
The same vague political statements about the prosecution of the war.
So, no real evidence was presented for the detainment for American citizens, Hamdis' facts were closer to Ex Parte Quirin that Padills's, and as far as Hamdis is concerned, in my opinion he gave up his American citizenship when he fought for a foreign country against America. But this question wasn't raised. His citizenship wasn't questioned.
I'm not satisfied. And the notion that a president can just "designate" a citizen as an "enemy combatant" is dangerous and frightful. What if Bubba was in office at this time? I'll bet I wouldn't be having this conversation.
The government in the Pedilla writ didn't even address the issue, just technical questions.
So's your mom, counselor.
"I've particpated in discussions on this board for a long time,"
"and you're the first truly insulting bastard I've run across."
Whatever, toots.
PS: invest in a mirror, post haste!
"The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life and property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war, subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
------------------
I believe this provides the basis for AG Ashcroft's position.
Also, OBL declared war on USA several years ago. The fact our miscreant President Klinton did nothing is a reflection on HIM. Not USA. We had the right to respond then, and certainly after 9-11 do likewise. Massively I would hope...
Remember this? I'm getting you up to snuff WT.
Hamdi was in the prison where Johnny Spann was beaten to death. Did you know that? The government has stated in court filings their particulars against Padilla including meetings with Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
My question is, how can you inquire about my mental state when you are not even minimally informed about the questions involved?
And by the way, the Fourth Circuit doesn't agree with you and even if they did why would it matter? You've already made clear that the they can't be trusted.
Nobody can be trusted except of course Padilla and Hamdi.
And by the way, the Fourth Circuit doesn't agree with you and even if they did why would it matter? You've already made clear that the they can't be trusted.
"The government urges us not only to reverse and remand the June 11 order, but in the alternative to reach further and dismiss the instant petition in its entirety. In its brief before this court, the government asserts that "given the constitutionally limited role of the courts in reviewing military decisions, courts may not second-guess the military's determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and should be detained as such." The government thus submits that we may not review at all its designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant -- that its determinations on this score are the first and final word. Any dismissal of the petition at this point would be as premature as the district court's June 11 order. 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. Given the interlocutory nature of this appeal, a remand rather than an outright dismissal is appropriate."
"If dismissal is thus not appropriate, deference to the political branches certainly is. It should be clear that circumspection is required if the judiciary is to maintain its proper posture of restraint. The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 670 ("[T]his Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted."). "
"The standards and procedures that should govern this case on remand are not for us to resolve in the first instance. It has long been established that 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). Separation of powers principles must, moreover, shape the standard for reviewing the government's designation of Hamdi as an enemy combatant. Any standard of inquiry must not present a risk of saddling military decision-making with the panoply of encumbrances associated with civil litigation."
Even though the appeals court agrees with my viewpoint, the use the "political question" argument won the day against judicial review. Many judges can't be trusted, not all. An example would be the 9th circuit. But I was talking about legislative and executive trust. In my opinion, if you trust on the good intentions of the elected officials and bureaucrates instead of strict walls of limitations, you are crazy, especially if the procedures are passed from one administration to the next.
Like I stated before, if Bubba was the president and Reno was Justice when all this happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And again, in Ex Parte Quirin, the American citizen was caught red-handed at espionage. While Hamdi was caught fighting in Afghanistan, the other citizen found fighting there is in the civilian courts now. Padilla has vague and circumstantial evidence against him, if that.
They may be both guilty. I'd say certainly Hamdi is. But for a nation that awards citizenship to an illegal alien who drops a baby between two rows of corn, and the Supreme Court holding that its citizenship can't be touched, the mere sayso of the executive that that citizenship is void for their purposes is irregular as hell.
You, and people who argue for that priviledge, don't see the egregious lengths to which it can be taken in a more hostile administration. If you don't, you're crazy. If we don't dot every "i" and cross every "t", we will find ourselves without i's and t's.
Other ways of questioning American citizens about their activities without holding them incommunicado are available. For instance, eavesdropping on accused and councel is now available, so access to councel is not a secretive affair and can't compromise any interrogation.
Again, thank you for posting the Habs. Otherwise, I would have to have been just suspicious instead of convinced.
Right on target!
"U.S. Constitution: Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
On Sept. 14, 2001, both chambers of Congress passed resolutions that did not use the word "war," but instead authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" responsible for the September 11 attacks.
Sorry, we are not in a state of war. Doesn't really matter what you think, those are the facts.
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.