US can detain ‘enemy combatant' indefinitely

[Ziggurat]

Holding someone indefinitely because they are suspected of doing something tomorrow or next year seems to rely on the premise that somebody]/i] in authority can predict the future.

What, you actually think that's somehow a new concept? You don't think government and law ALREADY operate that way? You don't think predictions about future behavior are already a critical component of such things as sentencing and parole decisions?

The government cannot operate without making predictions about the future. You and I can't operate without making predictions about the future. We do it all the time. We HAVE to do it.

I don't buy that premise. The current civil system is all we have.

No, actually, it's NOT all we have. For example, we already have a very well developed, time-tested military justice system that applies to members of the armed forces. It does not give the same rights to defendants that civilian courts do. I'm not saying we should just throw such cases over to military courts, but the idea that there is no alternative to civilian law is simply wrong. Is the alternative better or worse? That's certainly a point of debate, but alternatives do exist. And it's also possible for congress to CREATE a specific system explicitly for this class of cases, in which you could incorporate safeguards (such as an appeals process to an independent judiciary) without giving them the SAME protections as civilian courts. That's actually something I'd like to see, because I think if congress stepped in, they could solve a lot of the problems here.

But this isn't new, anyways. It goes back to Quirin (WWII), a case where the supreme court decided is WAS constitutional to hold and try citizens caught on US soil as enemy combatants (I believe the term they used was "unlawful belligerent", but the idea was the same). The problem with that case is they didn't specify what the boundaries are, but the idea that there are SOME conditions under which this is OK is not new

 

[fishbob]

What, you actually think that's somehow a new concept? You don't think government and law ALREADY operate that way? You don't think predictions about future behavior are already a critical component of such things as sentencing and parole decisions?

No. Not in regards to civil liberties. Sentencing and parole occur after the trial, after presentation of evidence of guilt, and after the evaluation of that evidence. The idea you are defending boils down to sentencing prior to evaluation of evidence.

No, actually, it's NOT all we have. For example, we already have a very well developed, time-tested military justice system that applies to members of the armed forces. It does not give the same rights to defendants that civilian courts do. I'm not saying we should just throw such cases over to military courts, but the idea that there is no alternative to civilian law is simply wrong. Is the alternative better or worse? That's certainly a point of debate, but alternatives do exist. And it's also possible for congress to CREATE a specific system explicitly for this class of cases, in which you could incorporate safeguards (such as an appeals process to an independent judiciary) without giving them the SAME protections as civilian courts. That's actually something I'd like to see, because I think if congress stepped in, they could solve a lot of the problems here.

OK, OK, OK, civil AND military courts.

I have not heard of any military court trying a member of the armed services for something he was suspected of maybe going to do. In both systems, the courts try people for their actions, based on evidence.

Courts do not try people for what they are suspected of being capable of, based on the say-so of the 'authorities'. Courts do not impose sentences before the trial. And sentences are definitive - there is no 'detention as long as we feel like it' in civilian or military court. Not in the US, anyway. Not until now.

 

[BPSCG]

And sentences are definitive - there is no 'detention as long as we feel like it' in civilian or military court. Not in the US, anyway. Not until now.

Contempt of court comes pretty close to it. You're in jail as long as the judge thinks you're dissin' him.

 

[Bjorn]

And it's also possible for congress to CREATE a specific system explicitly for this class of cases, in which you could incorporate safeguards (such as an appeals process to an independent judiciary) without giving them the SAME protections as civilian courts.

Wouldn't such systems have to comply with the constitution?

 

[BPSCG]

Wouldn't such systems have to comply with the constitution?

Of course. But look at the government congress has created over the last 200+ years. I somehow don't think that creating a jurisprudence system that deals with people who are not-quite-civilian criminals/not-quite-enemy-combatants should be beyond their capabilities.

 

[gnome]

Contempt of court comes pretty close to it. You're in jail as long as the judge thinks you're dissin' him.

Actually isn't there a 2-year limit on that?

My own reason why this is a problem has been said before--you can make a case that a real enemy combatant doesn't "deserve" a hearing. However, the very decision to categorize someone as an "enemy combatant" must be subject to review, or else the government has arbitrary power to hold ANYONE as long as the label "enemy combatant" is magically immune from review.

 

[jj]

But it's not a way to prevent such attacks.

In order to argue that one has prevented an attack one must either assert paranormality, or have evidence in-hand that the individual in question had acquired knowledge, materials, motive, and begun to act.

In the first place, you're letting Sylvia run the justice system. In the second case, you get into really hairy issues of what constitutes "begun to act".

Holding a citizen with constitutional protections, in any case, is a simple and obvious violation of the individual's civil rights. Does the president have the right to do that? It is possible, I suppose, under an emergency declaration that he might, but then again, an emergency declaration is the same, modulo intent, as a coup against the rest of the government.

When does one become the other? Nasty question, that.

 

[jj]

I haven't seen anything to suggest that there's no requirement for judicial oversight of some sort in these cases.

It's exactly what's happening, right in this case.

The present court has ruled that there need be no judicial oversight of this guy's imprisonment.

No proof is required to hold him for life. This forces us all to have absolute trust in the government's not simply grabbing political opponents and throwing them in jail.

All we have to do is look to parts of South America to see the foolishness of that.

 

[billydkid]

Duh!!!

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 President knows!!! Duh!!!! Dubya didn't get to be President bein' stupit. He knows a terrorist when he see's one.

 

[fishbob]

Contempt of court comes pretty close to it. You're in jail as long as the judge thinks you're dissin' him.

I think the judge has to check periodically to see if you are still dissin' him. He can't dump you in the pokey forever just because you dissed him one time.

 

[Bjorn]

From the US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004.

The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights include freedom from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from prolonged detention without charges, from disappearance or clandestine detention, and from other flagrant violations of the right to life, liberty and the security of the person.

The report specifies countries and incidents where such detention without charges have taken place.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's exactly what's happening, right in this case.

The present court has ruled that there need be no judicial oversight of this guy's imprisonment.

Really? Can you show me a quote from the ruling to that effect?

No proof is required to hold him for life.

There's no such thing as "proof" in legal cases - jury's don't listen to proofs, and they don't make proofs when they convict either. There IS, however, something called evidence. The process for evaluating evidence in this case certainly looks quite different from an ordinary criminal case, and you may consider that process insufficient, but that does NOT mean that evidence is not required. You're basically just making stuff up now.

 

[Bjorn]

The left-wing Fox News is summing up the status like this:

Court: Padilla Can Be Held Without Charges

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government either charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla

 

[Art Vandelay]

Is there? I don't know, it doesn't come up every day.

Well, actually, as far as I know there isn't really any such crime as "conspiracy". "Conspiracy" is a form of participation in a crime, and doesn't exist separate from that crime. And if one engages in conspiracy to commit a capital crime, that is often a capital crime itself.

fishbob

No. Not in regards to civil liberties. Sentencing and parole occur after the trial, after presentation of evidence of guilt, and after the evaluation of that evidence. The idea you are defending boils down to sentencing prior to evaluation of evidence.

Except that sentencing means punishment. Here, the intent is not to punish, but to prevent. If I think that someone is about to shoot me, I am justified in shooting him first. Not to punish him for trying to shoot me, but to save my life. This is a "civil liberties" issue (life is as basic a civil liberty as one can get), and it does rely on "predicting the future".

 

[fishbob]

Except that sentencing means punishment. Here, the intent is not to punish, but to prevent. If I think that someone is about to shoot me, I am justified in shooting him first. Not to punish him for trying to shoot me, but to save my life. This is a "civil liberties" issue (life is as basic a civil liberty as one can get), and it does rely on "predicting the future".

You have to be a little more certain than just thinking someone is about to shoot you before you are justified in shooting first. Otherwise, you are charged, tried, and maybe convicted.

In the case of a government 'shooting first' - unlimited detention, our government has always been obligated to show that there is an actual threat through presentation of evidence. If there is a real threat, put the evidence up for consideration. Otherwise this is trial by precognition - which just stinks.