Politics As Usual

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
The entire issue turns on whether we are at war with Al Qaeda or not.

I can also remember wars on drugs and poverty. How is "at war" defined (serious question)?

[sgtclub]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter How is "at war" defined (serious question)?

According to Article I, section 8, clause 11, Congress has the power to declare War.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
According to Article I, section 8, clause 11, Congress has the power to declare War.

as conventionally modified by the War Powers Act (I think)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, then, do you think that the protections of the Geneva Conventions should apply to Padilla and should have applied to Walker Lindh? Think carefully

The GC has a specific definition of what types of POWs fall under the protections of the GC. My understanding is that AQ types don't fit that defintion.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Or, if not -- and he's regarded as a plain-clothes spy and traitorous enemy operative, shouldn't he get his day in Court before being executed? Or not.

S_A_M

I consider him an enemy POW, who can be held until the war is over and some sort of truce has been declared or a surrender or whatever the end of this war will be like and the terms of release of the POWs have been settled.

Whether the GC applies to him or not is determined by the language of the GC. Not every enemy POW falls within the GC. Only those enemy POWs that are defined by the GC as falling within the GC. If the countries signing onto the GC wanted to include AQ terrorists as having protection, they could have written the GC to include terrorists. My understanding is that the GC does not define terrorists organizations as falling under its protection.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
as conventionally modified by the War Powers Act (I think)

The WPA doesn't lend that power to the Executive, and if it did it would likely be unconstitutional. It delegates the power to "introduce[] into hostilities" the armed forces in the absence of a congressional declaration of war when certain criteria are met, but it doesn't make what the President does "war" or "declare war."

Indeed, the text of the WPA tends to support the view that Congress saw a difference between introducing the American armed forces into hostilities on the one hand and declaring war on the other. And well they should --- their President was telling them there was a difference.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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 suppose next you'll be saying that accused criminals have forfeited the protections of the Bill of Rights by virtue of their transgressions?

The Constitution makes an express provision for U.S. citizens who make war on us. It is not optional --- you try them for treason under Article III.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How is "at war" defined (serious question)?

I am not really sure, and that is the crux of the issue as I see it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am not really sure, and that is the crux of the issue as I see it.

I just wanted to see this one more time.

[juan, usmc]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What does Juan think?

Yo pienso que tu y Hankee son pedazos de pelotudo. Comense mis pelotas michinados! No intiendo un retruécano.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I suppose next you'll be saying that accused criminals have forfeited the protections of the Bill of Rights by virtue of their transgressions?

The Constitution makes an express provision for U.S. citizens who make was on us. It is not option --- you try them for treason under Article III.

I don't see this as simply treason. This is beyond treason. Treason is helping the enemy. These people have joined a group who is actively trying to overthrow our government and instill an Islamic government. That is the ultimate goal of AQ - a world under Islamic rule.

[juan, usmc]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am not really sure, and that is the crux of the issue as I see it.

Demuéstreme tu hooha!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
as conventionally modified by the War Powers Act (I think)

What?

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
For what it's worth, I've heard they kind of get along. And remember it was Clinton in 2000 that, after meeing GWB, was warning DEMS not to misunderestimate him.

It's all part and parcel of the big Left-Right-Left Conspiracy wherein the Clintons and the Bushes had a secret meeting - brokered by the Israelis - at a Masonic Temple and plotted to deep-six Kerry in '04 in exchange for the Hillary nomination in '08.

Very, very hush-hush stuff.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't see this as simply treason. This is beyond treason. Treason is helping the enemy. These people have joined a group who is actively trying to overthrow our government and instill an Islamic government. That is the ultimate goal of AQ - a world under Islamic rule.

Treason defined:

Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution.

How is what you've just described not treason (or, "Beyond Treason")?

(I understand that this is "really bad" treason that pisses us off, but I think -- notwithstanding that cogent argument -- treason it remains.)