Posted on 01/10/2003 9:06:39 AM PST by Stultis
Then put a gag order on his attorney or provide a military one.
and someday we may see an article about Flatch in the same situation.
What's the criteria that places an American citizen in this situation?
- Is that criteria subject to change?
- Who has authority to change that criteria?
- As a fellow American citizen, what is my legal recourse to appeal should a government bureaucrat misuse his authority?
- Anyone here believe that a government bureaucrat would never abuse their position?
I believe it's Sinclair who should be paying more attention.
All governments have certain groups within which make very little distinction between "gun owners" and "terrorists bent on your destruction".
The fact that you make such a distinction is a good thing in my eyes. However, neither of us should assume that the ATF, FBI, or the Office of Homeland Security makes the same distinction.
Please just be careful what you wish for, because... well you know the line....
Yes I know. They are called Liberals, Democrats, Socialists and Communists. We are working on that. ;^)
I could care less is foreigners are detained indefinately without counsel. I just want to make sure the rights of US citizens are preserved.
Then they would have to get congress to authorize the use of military force against those people before they would be able to designate them "enemy combatants".
This is authorized by congress.
I am constantly astonished that this fact is ignored here by people who I believe respect the Constitution.
The congress passed Public Law 107-40 ( the authorization of military force) and the president is doing this under that authorization and the court acknowledeges that:
"The President is authorized under the Constitution and by law to direct the military to detain enemy combatants in the circumstances present here, such that Padilla's detention is not per se unlawful".
And OTOH consider that if the president did not use military force against those the congress directed him to, that he would properly be subject to impeachment and removal for failing to defend us and for failing to uphold the law!
( and imagine if some terrible attack resulted from his negligence!)
BTW: I agree that Padilla should have contact with his attorney to dispute his designation as an enemy-combatant.
The court's order puts reasonable security limits upon that contact.
Their rights are preserved.
Congress changed the Laws of War after the 1812 war with Britain to include citizens to be treated as "enemy combatants" if they are.
The court has no authority to issue the order.
They have ruled that he is under jurisdidtion of the Defence Deparment therefore not under his jurisdiction.
The old "separation of powers" thingy.
Here's the ruling on Padilla which is being appealed: HERE -it's a 100+ page PDF file.
Just reading the conclusion, it seems to back the administration in just about everything but the access to counsel.
Maybe the administration wants something more restrictive.
"They have ruled that he is under jurisdidtion of the Defence Deparment "
No, that is what they are going to decide.
But since the court must keep within it's own constitutional powers:
"the court will examine only whether the president has some evidence to support his designation and whether that evidence has been mooted by subsequent events" (paraphrasing)
The government only has to show "some evidence" that then makes the default decision that they are correct and so the court has no jurisdiction and the lawyers have no standing.
That is nothing new. During wartime that is the way it has always been.
I am paying attention.
Terrorists are whatever the Gov says they are. Arab Islamics, Gun owners, Pro Lifers, illegal immigrant resistance, anyone out of favor with the ruling class. Today it's the ones you want denied their rights. Tomorrow it's you. Remeber the old thing about "I didn't protest when they caame for ..."? If rights can be denied one group, they can be denied any group. And there is no way to prevent it once the principle that it is okay to deny rights to someone because of their category of crime is established; as is being done today.
I say that if the constitution and bill of rights are outdated in todays world then do away with them. If not, then obey them without qualification. No pretenses.
I agree. It's hard for me to imagine what harm would be done by giving a court-appointed attorney access to him. And whatever harm might be done to him ought to be tolerable in a constitutional system -- think of the harm to our whole system that would be done by not allowing him access.
The court has no authority to order either. It is not within their jurisdiction.
The old "separation of powers" thingy.
Under the constitution and the applicable law it is the Defense Deparment.
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.