Jose Padilla anyone know who this is?

[Mini D]

The way you describe this implies that they just walked up to someone and said "combatant... no rights".  Please research a little and find out what led up to this (his) "status".  It is not as clear cut as you seem to imply.

MiniD

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
There are special courts for protecting secrets... the prosecutions of the Pollard (he spied for Israel - our ally) and Aldrich Aimes are an examples.

The same can be done in this case... but it's not because the Bush Administration wants to have the option of torture and coerchion in order to extract information... it's understandable... but it makes America become it's own enemy and it becomes no better than the terrorist it is fighting.

Torture doesn't work against someone who is innocent.... they'll make up something just to stop the torture.

Personally, I don't buy the whole "they want to detain him without counsel so that they can torture him" argument that some people scream at the top of their lungs.  I have enough faith in Americans to believe that they know what is "right" or "wrong" and that, in the majority of cases, an American would find it hard to torture another person.

My objection, if you can call it, is more from the legal side of things and what is "fair" and "right".  I also think that it sets a very bad precedent, and tends to taint the "freedom" that the President is always trying to promote overseas.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Martlet
So we can't arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in combat?  What about terrorists?  We have to wait until they commit the act before we can arrest them?  If not, then we have to charge them as soon as we arrest them?  Now we are back at exposing national security interests.

I'm just going to get out of this thread.  It just turned into a complete waste of time.

MiniD

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Mini D
I'm just going to get out of this thread.  It just turned into a complete waste of time.

MiniD

agreed

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d
The only implication is that he must be charged - with treason in this case. You see any other implications?
 

Ex Parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243 (1863)

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by MJHerman
If someone could point me to a U.S. court decision where the concept of "enemy combatants" is discussed by the court I would be grateful, if for no other reason than to read some more on the history of the concept.  I imagine that there were a few cases during WWII?

Ergo the problem...

Bush Administration is claiming US Courts do not have jurisprudence because:

1. These people are enemy combants.
2. They are not being held on US soil

Thus the Supreme court case that will be decided next year.

here's a few links that may be helpful.

"Judicial review does not disappear during wartime but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one," said the opinion of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/06/us0612.htm

"Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi, was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in late 2001. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in its January 8 ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said that because it is "undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat," there is sufficient basis to detain him without some normal constitutional protections. Hamdi is being held at a U.S. military brig in Norfolk, Virginia."
http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/USResponse/Jan0903RulingEnemyCombattent.html

The first step is to prove that Federal courts have Jurisprudence over GITMO.


There's no question that individuals caught on a battle field are enemy combants...

Those caught on American soil with out weapons in hands... what are they?

During WWII they were spies... sumarily tried and could be shot

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d
They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?

More than an ex-soviet citizen?

[capt. apathy]

So we can't arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in combat? What about terrorists? We have to wait until they commit the act before we can arrest them? If not, then we have to charge them as soon as we arrest them? Now we are back at exposing national security interests

no, not at all.  you can still arrest them.  you just have to say what you are arresting them for,  what evedence you have to suport your suspissions and give them a chance to refute your alagations in court.

the thing is that you can't just declare that certain groups have less rights, and then use nothing but further declarations to prove who is in the group.

in other words it hasn't been proven that he is a 'combatant',  so until that is proven the other declarations don't really have much meaning.

this rule by declaration set up completely negates our checks and ballances.  what's next?  declair other branches of the gov't combatants and set up a dictatorship.

I know these are outrageous extremes that are not likely to come up (hopefully there would be a revolution before it got that far),  but the point is that if we allow these cases to stand they become precedent that further interpritations of law will be based on them.

the right to know waht you are being held for and face the acusers and evidence against you is critical to any free society.

[capt. apathy]

More than an ex-soviet citizen?

my guess it would give that person a fairly clear view of the cost of trading your freedom for the percieved safety of unchecked gov't power

[miko2d]

Hortlund: More than an ex-soviet citizen?

 And what would necessarily make a dumb scared pro-socialist swede more knowlegeable about the liberty/safety trade-off than an ex-soviet citizen that tried both and made a concious choice?


capt. apathy: my guess it would give that person a fairly clear view of the cost of trading your freedom for the percieved safety of unchecked gov't power

 Actually, it may contribute to the personal motivation. The knowlege of such matters comes from studying the historical and philosophical writings. One does not really have to experience the horrors of a totalitarian state or to live in a free state in order to gain understanding that Founding Fathers had.

 A marxist ideologue like like Hortlund who subscribes to the polylogism theory of concience may not care about it but for the rest of us the path to learning is open. Pick up a damn book or dozen and read what comes out of trading liberty for safety.

Ex parte Vallandigham 68 U.S. 243 (1864)
In 1863, soldiers arrested, tried and found guilty Democratic Sen. Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio for violating Army orders against public expressions of Confederate sympathies. He had denounced the War and the Administration at home and in Congress. President Abraham Lincoln banished Vallandigham to rebel territory. He returned and appealed the action in the Supreme Court.

The Court held, unanimously, that it had no jurisdiction over appeals from military courts.

 So the army can arrest and punish a person - even an elected  politician - for what he thinks and says. The army can make laws on what people can say - I thought it was only Congress that could make laws. What's so constitutional about this case?
 We know that Linkoln jailed and held without charges thousands of his political opponents. That's what we would want to prevent, not encourage.


Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

 We have a bunch of germans who are not citizens of US to disembark from a german sumbarine in 1942 carrying a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices and wearing German Marine Infantry uniforms.
 Without delving into details, I'd say they had a much better case to hold those people than they have with Jose Padilla.

 miko

[MJHerman]

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) - I don't know the details of this case, but your brief summary suggested that the German sailors/marines in question were in uniform.  If that was the case, they should have fallen under the Geneva Convention.

But again, I don't know the facts and haven't read the judgment.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Seeker
 You should back a statement like that up with some links and info.

I have no idea who this weever fellow is. But if you are one of the tin hat conspericy wackos or just a moron like nexus don't bother.

Actaully I think he meant Randy Weaver and the incident at Ruby Ridge in Idaho where Federal Marshalls and FBI agents shot and killed Mr. Weavers 14 yr old son in the back as he was running for the cabin and shot Mr. Weavers wife while she was in the cabin holding an infant.

[Elfie]

Sounds like to me they are treating this guy like a POW and not a civilian criminal. In the former case I think the military has the right to hold him as long as they like.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Elfie
 shot Mr. Weavers wife while she was in the cabin holding an infant.

They had to shoot, the infant was loaded.

-Sik

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by miko2d

 And what would necessarily make a dumb scared pro-socialist swede more knowlegeable about the liberty/safety trade-off than an ex-soviet citizen that tried both and made a concious choice?

I wouldnt know miko, since Im neither dumb or scared or pro-socialist.