Ashcroft defends holding Americans as `enemy combatants'

AP | 3/06/03 | CURT ANDERSON

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Democratic congressman told Attorney General John Ashcroft on Thursday that the federal government's continued detention of two U.S. citizens without charges or access to lawyers is frightening.

New York Rep. Jose Serrano said there is a widely held perception that the detentions of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi as "enemy combatants" are unfair.

"You've got to be concerned that these are American citizens detained without charges," Serrano said. Such action is frightening, he said.

Padilla, arrested at a Chicago airport, is accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States and Hamdi, who was born in Louisiana, was captured fighting with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They are classified as enemy combatants and are being held in military brigs without access to lawyers.

Ashcroft, testifying before the House Appropriations Committee that oversees the Justice Department's budget, pointed to jurisprudence, upheld by the Supreme Court, giving the president the power to hold people until hostilities cease and to try them before military tribunals.

Court trials could open the government to questioning by defense lawyers that might reveal intelligence secrets, sources and methods, Ashcroft said.

"We are aware that this is a matter of serious concern," Ashcroft said. "These are tough issues to be balanced."

Ashcroft also defended the government's detention of hundreds of foreigners after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling the committee that the vast majority have been deported or left the country willingly.

In response to questions from Serrano, the panel's ranking Democrat, Ashcroft said that 766 aliens were detained in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, mostly for overstaying visas. Of those, 489 have been deported or left the United States willingly.

Another 29 are still in custody, of which three continue to be investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, Ashcroft said. In addition, 108 people have been convicted or pleaded guilty to what Ashcroft called terror-related charges in the 18 months since the attacks.

"No people have been held by the Justice Department who have not been charged," Ashcroft said. "No one has just been rounded up."

Ashcroft also came into tough questioning from Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., over his decisions this year to overrule local U.S. attorneys who had not wanted to seek the death penalty. Kennedy contrasted that with studies he said show that capital punishment is "overwhelmingly" unfair to blacks and other minorities.

Ashcroft defended his decisions in the federal cases, saying that his goal is to ensure that the federal death penalty is applied in a "fair and uniform manner" around the country. He said he had little power over state capital punishment practices.

[Alberta's Child]

Flight 800 is probably the one "suspected" terrorist attack that doesn't add up. A close examination of the evidence actually seems to point to an accidental shoot-down by the U.S. Navy.

But the rest all seem legit.

[F16Fighter]

Is New York Rep. Jose Serrano suggesting he himself is a real American??

The man is a traitorous American-In-Name-Only disgrace.

[Ahban]

Good answer.

[San Jacinto]

First you criticize "right wing wacos" (sic) for saying just "forget the law", then you say you don't give a crap "what the Supreme Court said in 1949" (sic).

You want to rely upon some kind of "natural law" and common sense. I think I would prefer to have the laws that govern my conduct as to what is legal or illegal to be written down, if you don't mind. My opinion of what is the natural law and what is common sense may differ from yours.

[sourcery]

Firstly, every case is different. There are significant differences between the Hamdi and Padilla cases, for example. Note that my previous posts were not aimed specifically at the Hamdi case. The evidence in the public record that backs the charge that Hamdi is an enemy combatant is far stronger than it it is in the Padilla case.

Secondly, I care nothing for either Padilla or Hamdi. Both are probably very guilty, evil men, who would no doubt spend far less time worrying about my rights, than I do about theirs. On the other hand, the actual degree of guilt, or quality of character, of either of these individuals is not the issue that concerns me. Principles and precedents are the strategic issues here.

You may be perfectly happy with a situation where the government can indefinitely detain without trial anyone it designates as an "enemy combatant," provided it can provide a court with "some evidence" to back that allegation. I am not.

[mrsmith]

I am no more happy about capturing renegade Americans than I am happy to have them killed though I prefer either to letting them kill innocent loyal Americans.
Nothing about war makes me happy. It is at best neccessary.

I am happy that in my country this power was authorized against these two by the legislature and not solely by the executive- as the courts pointed out in both of these cases.
The Founders were wise to insist on limiting the Presidents' war powers.

The legislature should reconsider affording some of the Constitution's criminal protections to some detained renegades- in addition to their Habeas Corpus rights.
But it's difficult to write laws to cover "illegal citizen combatants" ("every case is different").
There was an attempt in congress last year, but it was abandoned. Perhaps after these cases they'll have a better idea of what should be considered.

One thing I think should be addressed by the congress: it seems there might not presently be a means to guarantee that detainees can petition for a habeas corpus hearing. Though these two got theirs, that seemed to happen by circumstance which is no way to treat "the great writ".

[sourcery]

While I don't think that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the right evidentiary standard for court review of a writ of habeas corpus in the case of alleged enemy combatants (clearly too burdensome,) I also don't think that "some evidence" (which is semantically equivalent to "any evidence whatsoever," which could be satisfied by stipulating "a single informant of unknown or unspecified reliability has claimed the accused did something,") is a satisfactory standard. For due process to mean anything, for court review to mean anything, there simply has to be a higher standard than that! It takes more than that to justify a simple traffic stop. I'd prefer a "preponderance of the evidence standard," because otherwise you formally put the burden of proof on the accused, and that should never be.

[borntodiefree]

First, the Supreme Court is not "the law" they were created by contract law to fullfill the duties set forth in the constitution. They have continually done a piss poor job and has gotten worse year after year beginning at the end of the 19th century.

The only true law, as many of the founders desired, and tried to create through the consitution of the US. The only true laws in this Federation is those that prosecute one person for violating the rights of another. All the other administrative and "morality laws" are clearly unconstituiotional.

I don't condone sick, perverted, or self destructive behavior, but just becuase I can't get people to see things as God would want them to be seen, doesn't mean that I can, through the force of civil (and clearly sin tainted)government "make them do it".

You may wish to add to your knowledge base by visiting some places on the web such as

www.atgpress.com

You may not agree with everything, but it will give you an opportunity to start with a clean slate and not be bound by false feudalistic/socialistic doctrine that has permiated the United States into a country that Hitler would be proud of.