US can detain ‘enemy combatant' indefinitely

[fishbob]

source

the court's ruling, written by Judge Michael Luttig, who is considered a potential Supreme Court nominee, said definitively that Mr Bush had been given such powers by the congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

That resolution, the court said, “provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.

This court has decided that an American citizen can be held indefinitly because congress provided the president powers to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks. Congress provided this authorization to the president based on information manipulated by the executive branch, that has since been shown to be wrong. And the opinion was written by another potential Bush appointtee to the Supreme Court. Nice work if you can get it.

This stinks.

 

[Cleon]

No, no, no, fishbob. It's ok because countries aren't required to give due process to POWs. Despite the fact that these guys aren't POWs. And because they aren't POWs, they're not entitled to any legal protections.

Got it? (Yeah, neither do I.)

 

[aerocontrols]

Congress provided this authorization to the president based on information manipulated by the executive branch, that has since been shown to be wrong.

What wrong information manipulated by the executive branch?

 

[fishbob]

What wrong information manipulated by the executive branch?

You know - mushroom clouds, WMDs, remote control drones that can deliver biologic agents in mere hours, centrifuges for the Iraqi nucular program. That kind of thing.

Oh yeah, yellowcake uranium from Niger.

 

[aerocontrols]

You know - mushroom clouds, WMDs, remote control drones that can deliver biologic agents in mere hours, centrifuges for the Iraqi nucular program. That kind of thing.

Are you confusing your Congressional Use of Force resolutions?

 

[fishbob]

Could be. According to the article above though, it looks like the same resolution.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, no, no, fishbob. It's ok because countries aren't required to give due process to POWs.

What, exactly, do you think "due process" is? POW's indeed get due process, it's just a very different process than civilian law criminals, and doesn't happen to include trials. But it's due process, because it follows the process laid down by law. Objecting to what that process is or should be doesn't actually change that.

 

[aerocontrols]

Could be. According to the article above though, it looks like the same resolution.

It's pretty obvious to me that it's not. What part of "congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks" throws you off?

 

[fishbob]

It's pretty obvious to me that it's not. What part of "congressional declaration authorising military force following the September 11 terrorist attacks" throws you off?

Please be more specific. It seems that you are thinking of 2 separate resolutions by congress. Which ones, and how are they different?

Oh, and dammit, even if there are 2, this still stinks.

 

[aerocontrols]

Please be more specific. It seems that you are thinking of 2 separate resolutions by congress. Which ones, and how are they different?

Oh, and dammit, even if there are 2, this still stinks.

9/11

Iraq

 

[fishbob]

From one resolution:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

From the other resolution:

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

You are definitely right, I was confused. The court (see my first post) reference is pretty clearly a spin on on the first resolution. Note how the court twisted 'necessary and appropriate force' into 'all powers'. I fail to see how any court interpretation of 'appropriate' can legitimately supercede the constitutional rights of US citizens.

This still stinks.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I think it is a great idea.

Just think of the money this could save the government.

A citizen is arrested and put in jail by a law enforcement agency. The agency then declares that you are a terrorist/enemy combatant, and they decide to hold you incognito indefinitely. This decision does not have to be reviewed by a judge.

We could eliminate the need for:

Defense attorneys - You can not contact an attorney because you are being held incognito. And since you don't have a lawyer, you can not contest the decision to hold you incognito.

District Attorneys - Why go to the trouble to have a trial which may or may not land the defendant in jail, when you can just hold him there indefinitely anyway.

Gathering and storing evidence - Since we don't need trials, and the claim of being an enemy combatant is not reviewable by a judge, we won't need to gather or store evidence anymore.

Making the executive branch judge, jury and executioner (jailer) ... Brilliant!

LLH

 

[Bjorn]

That resolution, the court said, “provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.

And how do we know if the forever detained persons (in this case a US citizen, arrested in the US) are committed enemies if we don't bring them to court?

 

[The Fool]

And how do we know if the forever detained persons (in this case a US citizen, arrested in the US) are committed enemies if we don't bring them to court?

Its tattooed on the back of thier necks...

 

[Bjorn]

Its tattooed on the back of thier necks...

But the tattoos or lack of tattoos are not shown to a court ....

 

[The Fool]

But the tattoos or lack of tattoos are not shown to a court ....

Look Bjorn, why can't you just accept what the US government tells you about these people....A lot of people seem to be able to manage it...what IS your problem?

Evidence, evidence, evidence...don't be so pedantic....They have the evidence, they told me so.

 

[Skeptic]

No, no, no, fishbob. It's ok because countries aren't required to give due process to POWs. Despite the fact that these guys aren't POWs. And because they aren't POWs, they're not entitled to any legal protections.

Yes, actually, I get it.

It is not as if there are only two options--either POW or criminal defendant--which somebody can be in, so that if someone is not a POW he is automatically a criminal defendant or vise-versa. These two positions only apply to people who meet certain minimum requirements, or in certain circumstaces. One could be neither and deserve the rights of neither group--as is the situation in this case.

In this case, criminal prosecution clearly doesn't apply since we're talking about a war--or else, every Taliban fighter caught could be convicted of assistance to murder / assault due to the very fact that they fight US soldiers (and every American soldier could be sued for assault, too). So they are not criminal defendants. But not being a criminal defendant doesn't mean one must be a POW: not everybody who fights in a war deserves POW status. For example, POWs must carry weapons openly, wear uniforms, and not wantonly attack civilians. Not true in this case. So Al Quaeda members simply deserve neither the rights of POWs or the rights of criminal defendants, since neither conditions applies to them.

If anything, going by the letter of the law, Al Quaeda is the type of organization that makes its members "spies" or "saboteurs" (due to their mingling with and targeting of civilians), which, according to the laws of war, mean they can be executed for the very fact of being saboteurs, as were, for example, those German soldiers who, during the battle of the bluge, were caught wearing American uniforms behind the lines. That the US does not do this is due to the US's humanity, not due to any POW or criminal defendant rights Al Quaeda members have. They have none.

 

[Bjorn]

In this case,

In this case it is about a US citizen, arrested in the US and accused of .... something.

every Taliban fighter caught could be convicted of

A trial could decide if he is one.

For example, POWs must carry weapons openly, wear uniforms, and not wantonly attack civilians. Not true in this case.

Has he wantonly attacked or planned to attack civilians? A trial could decide this.

So Al Quaeda members simply deserve neither the rights of POWs or the rights of criminal defendants, since neither conditions applies to them.

A trial could decide if he is guilty of this.

If anything, going by the letter of the law, Al Quaeda is the type of organization that makes its members "spies" or "saboteurs"....

And he is a member, or guilty of something just because ... someone says so?

You, Skeptic, could be thrown in jail tomorrow and kept there forever with no trial nor jury of your peers, because the judges today found that the congress

provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.

That is, of course, if you are found to be a committed enemy by ...... how was that again?

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, Bjorn, a trial could decide all those questions. So could an investigative committee with a billion dollar budget per prisoner. But the point is, with the possible exception of those Al Quaeda members who are also US citizens, they don't have a right to a trial any more than they have a right to such a committee. It's simply not applicable to their situation.

 

[Bjorn]

Yes, Bjorn, a trial could decide all those questions. So could an investigative committee with a billion dollar budget per prisoner. But the point is, with the possible exception of those Al Quaeda members who are also US citizens, they don't have a right to a trial any more than they have a right to such a committee. It's simply not applicable to their situation.

But we are talking about a US citizen, arrested in the US, who might or might not be a member of some organization, maybe Al Quada. In other words, clearly an exception even acccording to your standards.

You, Skeptic, are an Al Queda member, and could be thrown in jail tomorrow and kept there forever with no trial nor jury of your peers, because the judges today found that the congress

provided the president all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist acts,” including the power to detain committed enemies even if they are US citizens.

That is, of course, if you are found to be a committed enemy by ...... how was that again?