Jose Padilla anyone know who this is?

[Mini D]

Not much wrong with discussing this, but the same group that posted the other thread is now in this one trying to make the same points, while completely ignoring the fact that they've consistantly been wrong and uninformed on these situations to date.

Of course, the same group is also over here saying "he did it... nothing else matters" like that's any better.

MiniD

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by miko2d
14th amendment is no help here. The section about due process refers to the States only, not the federal government.
 It's the 5th amendment issue.

Yeah, I retracted 2 minutes later lol.

-Sik

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... it does.  It makes all the difference in the world.  Unfortunately, there isn't a clear cut guideline for establishing the enemy combatant status.  It's really why this is dragging on so long.

MiniD

Sorry, I really have to disagree.

The only power afforded to the President is that which he derives from the Constitution.  If what he does is (a) beyond the authority given to him or (b) is not constitutional, then the act is unlawful.

I find it hard to believe that the drafts of the Constitution ever intended that, if a President would take an action that in and of itself would be unconstitutional (i.e., detention without charge), the President could make that action "constitutional" by simply declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply in those circumstances.  Such a turn of events is precisely the kind of tyranny (in the sense of rule by decree) that your forefathers were trying to escape from.

[miko2d]

Hortlund: Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that

 Americans suffered worse casualties voluntarily for the cause of freedom and individual rights.
 We can live while being attacked. We cannot possibly be invaded and occupied, let alone disarmed by outsiders.

 It's our own government that the Founding Fathers told americans to watch carefully.
 They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?

 miko

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Mini D
Not much wrong with discussing this, but the same group that posted the other thread is now in this one trying to make the same points, while completely ignoring the fact that they've consistantly been wrong and uninformed on these situations to date.

Of course, the same group is also over here saying "he did it... nothing else matters" like that's any better.

MiniD

It's all dependent on your comfort level.  The guy is a known thug.   He's been trouble since childhood.  I'm completely comfortable with the gov't also naming him as a terrorist and explaining why.  If it were someone else, I may feel differently.  With him, I think the system is working perfectly.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by miko2d
Hortlund: Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that

 Americans suffered worse casualties voluntarily for the cause of freedom and individual rights.
 We can live while being attacked. We cannot possibly be invaded and occupied, let alone disarmed by outsiders.

 It's our own government that the Founding Fathers told americans to watch carefully.
 They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?

 miko

What he said

[capt. apathy]

It's all dependent on your comfort level. The guy is a known thug. He's been trouble since childhood. I'm completely comfortable with the gov't also naming him as a terrorist and explaining why.

if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court?  if it is truely an 'open and shut case'  then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.

sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court?  if it is truely an 'open and shut case'  then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.

sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.

Who knows.  Maybe they are getting more information from him.  If he underwent training of bomb building, he must have some decent contacts.

Maybe they lost him.

Maybe they accidentally killed him.

I'm comfortable with any of those reasons.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court?  if it is truely an 'open and shut case'  then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.

sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.

Part of the concern is that any evidence/testimony would reveal information which is essential to National Security (i.e., intelligence sources, etc.). I can see the concern there, but the result is you end up with secret trials:

"We have evidence against you"
"But I didn't do anything"
"But we have all this evidence that you did"
"Show me"
"Sorry, can't do that...National Security interests....telling you could put at risk the intelligence sources that helped us get this evidence and hinder them from getting similar evidence that against other people that we wouldn't show to those other people either.....but trust us, we've got all this great evidence"
"So how do I clear my name?"
"You have to convince us that our evidence is wrong"
"But you won't let me see the evidence"
"Trust us"

If it wasn't so serious it would make for a great Monty Python routine.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by MJHerman
I find it hard to believe that the drafts of the Constitution ever intended that, if a President would take an action that in and of itself would be unconstitutional (i.e., detention without charge), the President could make that action "constitutional" by simply declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply in those circumstances.  Such a turn of events is precisely the kind of tyranny (in the sense of rule by decree) that your forefathers were trying to escape from.

Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war.  The Geneva convention tends to cover that.  That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.

Despite what you think... this situation is something that has fallen between the cracks.  That is precisely why it has dragged on so long.   As a combatant, he forfeits the rights of citizenship.  This is clear.  The question comes in defining "combatant" and exactly where the line between the rights of citizenship and the treatment as combatant exist.

MIniD

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by MJHerman
Part of the concern is that any evidence/testimony would reveal information which is essential to National Security (i.e., intelligence sources, etc.). I can see the concern there, but the result is you end up with secret trials:

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.

[capt. apathy]

Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war. The Geneva convention tends to cover that. That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.

actually he's only a combatant by the same deffinition he is 'guilty', bush's declaration.

he wast in uniform or pulled off a battle field. ( I realise that this type of war doesn't really fit the old deffinitions) but at the very least he should have actively been involved in combat before you could classify him a combatant.  the only way you could acurately put him in that catagory would be to prove it, in court.

as it is bush is just using one declaration to explain the legality of another declartation.

[Mini D]

That's the problem apathy... there isn't an established means for "proving someone is a combatant" in court or otherwise.  I do believe there will be before long.  Right now, alot of people are trying to apply guidelines that weren't written to cover this situation.  None of them fit well... thus the cracks.

MiniD

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war.  The Geneva convention tends to cover that.  That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.

Despite what you think... this situation is something that has fallen between the cracks.  That is precisely why it has dragged on so long.   As a combatant, he forfeits the rights of citizenship.  This is clear.  The question comes in defining "combatant" and exactly where the line between the rights of citizenship and the treatment as combatant exist.

MIniD

Perhaps part of the problem that I have understanding all of this is that, as a Canadian, I have no experience with the concept of constitutional rights and/or the rule of law only applying to citizens.  I believe that is something unique to the U.S., and may be a function of judicial decisions there.  I have to plead ignorance on all of that, simply because I don't know.  

What is also alien to this Canuck is the concept that the legal protections afforded to any person can be revoked by decree, i.e., simply by labelling someone something and thereby throwing him into legal limbo.

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?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
actually he's only a combatant by the same deffinition he is 'guilty', bush's declaration.

he wast in uniform or pulled off a battle field. ( I realise that this type of war doesn't really fit the old deffinitions) but at the very least he should have actively been involved in combat before you could classify him a combatant.  the only way you could acurately put him in that catagory would be to prove it, in court.

as it is bush is just using one declaration to explain the legality of another declartation.

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.