Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) Under what circumstances is a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, not entitled to Constitutional protections as against his government?
(Particularly when we are not, technically, at war with anyone?)
(b) As far as I know, this is pretty much a case of first impression. The "enemy combatant" cases that the administration's defenders kept throwing around early on involved Germans sent ashore from a submarine to spy/sabotage in the U.S. in WWII. I'm not aware of a case with facts that are even particularly close to this.
|
I'm not sure I see a difference between someone in US controlled waters and US controlled land. Is there something special about land?
Quote:
|
However, Club -- how can you say that we HAVE judicial review of the "enemy combatant" designation when that is precisely the issue being fought in the courts, and the administration has taken the position that there can and should be NO REVIEW of such designation by the judiciary?
|
If this is the case, my position is that there should be judicial review, or some sort of check on the executive branch's power.
Quote:
|
If there is some judicial review, and the designation is upheld -- is it your position that this is just fine? i.e. If you've been properly designated an "enemy combatant" (some kind of "reasonable basis" test, I'd assume) -- the government can hold him forever (or so long as desired), without charges, and with no right to further challenge his status? Shit, we should heve thought this up years ago and used it on Randy Weaver.
|
Troubling as it is, yes. Assuming the person has been properly categorized, I see no reason to treat him differently then we treat POWs, as he has waived his rights to the protections of the US when he has sought to destroy it.
Quote:
|
Sure, there are plenty of contituencies and issues to consider. There are legitimate national security concerns if the government is exercising its power responsibly.
|
You seem to site this as a throw away. I view this as the paramount factor.
Quote:
What would prevent these issues from being handled in an expanded "national security" court system, where proceedings can be held in secret, with judges, attorneys, etc. who have the requisite clearances to hear the evidence? [The hell of it is that these scary secret courts, with the proper procedural protections, would be a vast improvement on what we have now for them.]
If the response is that the evidence won't meet the requisite burden of proof, because intelligence is always squishy, I'd ask whether we really want our government to be able to confine our citizens indefinitely based on vague or unprovable assertions?
|
I have no problem with this type of safe guard, as long as we don't have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It should be something far less. Shit, even OJ wasn't convicted.
Quote:
|
Is whatever benefit we might be getting from this "enemy combatant" stuff really worth the cost to our civil liberties and national identity?
|
Yes, is is. It is not "our" civil liberties, it is the civil liberties of a handful of people who have sought to bring down the very free society that we cherish. I can't get all worked up about this given the limited application to US citizens and the alleged conduct of those citizens.
