Politics As Usual

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
A purported al-Qaida statement, posted late Saturday on an Islamic Web site, included a passport-size photo of Paul Johnson Jr. and a Lockheed Martin business card bearing his name. The statement threatened to treat Johnson as U.S. troops treated Iraqi prisoners _ an apparent reference to abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

So they are going to put panties on his head?

As long as he keeps his head, that should be acceptable, relatively speaking.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Anyone else see Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday? Thought it was a pretty good idea, myself.

No.

What was the idea?

[Replaced_Texan]

on a standing issue.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._of_allegiance

Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

15 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

Pussies.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The "combatant" part seems like something of a stretch.

True.

It is a clever move by ICRC, though. Seems from the article that they're really more focused on the thousands of other detainees, and understood that the best way to get public attention on it was to shine the light on SH to show the logical flaws in perpetual detainment.

Actual question: Wouldn't SH get handed off to whatever Iraq organization that's been preparing for his trial, anyway? Or are we really thinking that we'll keep him until we're ready?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
True.

It is a clever move by ICRC, though. Seems from the article that they're really more focused on the thousands of other detainees, and understood that the best way to get public attention on it was to shine the light on SH to show the logical flaws in perpetual detainment.

Actual question: Wouldn't SH get handed off to whatever Iraq organization that's been preparing for his trial, anyway? Or are we really thinking that we'll keep him until we're ready?

Last I heard, the Saddam tribunal was having difficulty coming up with witnesses willing to testify against Saddam. It would suck if it couldn't make a case against one of the world's most notorious and brutal dictators. But I've overestimated the abilities of the Bush team in the past.

It seems inconceivable to me that we would hand him over to any body that was not prepared to guaranty Saddam's conviction of an offense with a penalty of death. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but it would be dangerous to leave him alive - he could be used as a figure head for a band of adventurers plotting a coup.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
on a standing issue.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._of_allegiance

Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

15 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

Sidestep my ass. Sandra Day O'Connor joined Rehnquist's opinion that the pledge does not violate the Constitution. Since the arrangement in Establishment Clause cases is that she has the proxy of the other eight justices, it's as good as litigated.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
on a standing issue.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._of_allegiance

Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

15 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

Pussies.

Thank God.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Last I heard, the Saddam tribunal was having difficulty coming up with witnesses willing to testify against Saddam. It would suck if it couldn't make a case against one of the world's most notorious and brutal dictators. But I've overestimated the abilities of the Bush team in the past.

It seems inconceivable to me that we would hand him over to any body that was not prepared to guaranty Saddam's conviction of an offense with a penalty of death. I'm no fan of the death penalty, but it would be dangerous to leave him alive - he could be used as a figure head for a band of adventurers plotting a coup.

Jay Leno on the charges against Hussein:

• According to The New York Times, last year White House lawyers concluded that President Bush could legally order interrogators to torture and even kill people in the interest of national security -- so if that's legal, what the hell are we charging Saddam Hussein with?

[Shape Shifter]

Ty, I know you've got a pretty full blogplate, but I just ran across one that you may find interesting.

(spree: from TSG, samplings of David Berkowitz's prison blog)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well what troubles you? The fact that he's a citizen?

The whole "enemy combatant" regime troubles me a lot. As applied to a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, who is undoubtedly entitled to all of the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, it troubles me even more.

Arrest a U.S. citizen, and slap him in jail. Just before you may have to make a court appearance -- remove his case from the criminal justice system and transfer him to a military prison without telling anyone.

Take the position that, because the Administration has declared that citizen an "enemy combatant", he has essentially no procedural rights -- and no ability to challenge his detention or the information on which it was based. Take the position that the Administration can hold him incommunicado indefinitely -- until the "War on Terror" is won.

Take the position that the Courts cannot intervene, and have no standing to look behind a bland summary declaration submitted by a government official who has no first-hand knowledge of the facts.

Deny him access to a lawyer, or to any visits from anyone, for years. Interrogate him at will, under undisclosed conditions.

After losing at the Ct. of Appeals level -- and during a bad news week for the Administration while the S.Ct has your case under advisement -- have the Deputy Attorney General hold a press conference in which he puts out a whole bunch of damaging information about you allegedly resulting from the years of your incommunicado detention and interrogation.

In fairness, the written form of the presentation (letter to Orrin Hatch) does footnote your denials of membership in al Qaeda and allegiance to bin Laden, and your claim that you discussed this stuff with AQ so that they'd let you go back to the U.S. rather than send you to Afghanistan with John Walker. However, its damn clear that, if the government gets its way, you will never have the ability to contest the charges against you.

That's a fair summary of what I have a problem with.

If you don't, well -- if the War on Terror is still going on when I'm elected President, I'll garauntee you that Not Me and Gin Rummy are going down. Probably have to silence AG as well. He'd make a stink.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The whole "enemy combatant" regime troubles me a lot. As applied to a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, who is undoubtedly entitled to all of the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution, it troubles me even more.

Arrest a U.S. citizen, and slap him in jail. Just before you may have to make a court appearance -- remove his case from the criminal justice system and transfer him to a military prison without telling anyone.

Take the position that, because the Administration has declared that citizen an "enemy combatant", he has essentially no procedural rights -- and no ability to challenge his detention or the information on which it was based. Take the position that the Administration can hold him incommunicado indefinitely -- until the "War on Terror" is won.

Take the position that the Courts cannot intervene, and have no standing to look behind a bland summary declaration submitted by a government official who has no first-hand knowledge of the facts.

Deny him access to a lawyer, or to any visits from anyone, for years. Interrogate him at will, under undisclosed conditions.

After losing at the Ct. of Appeals level -- and during a bad news week for the Administration while the S.Ct has your case under advisement -- have the Deputy Attorney General hold a press conference in which he puts out a whole bunch of damaging information about you allegedly resulting from the years of your incommunicado detention and interrogation.

In fairness, the written form of the presentation (letter to Orrin Hatch) does footnote your denials of membership in al Qaeda and allegiance to bin Laden, and your claim that you discussed this stuff with AQ so that they'd let you go back to the U.S. rather than send you to Afghanistan with John Walker. However, its damn clear that, if the government gets its way, you will never have the ability to contest the charges against you.

That's a fair summary of what I have a problem with.

If you don't, well -- if the War on Terror is still going on when I'm elected President, I'll garauntee you that Not Me and Gin Rummy are going down. Probably have to silence AG as well. He'd make a stink.

S_A_M

I don't really know enough about this area of law, but it is my understanding that this is not a case of first impression. So I'm not sure it is right to say he is undoubtedly entitled to Constitutional protections.

Perhaps you are arguing what the law should be, in which case, I believe there are constituencies on both sides whose rights need to be considered. From what I understand, the big fear of the GOV is that by giving him Constitutional rights, he would have access to communicate with those who mean to do us harm. If true, this is a serious concern to me. On the other side of the coin are, of course, the human rights issues. And on top of all this, we have separation of powers issues.

So given all this, it seems to me that the way to balance these competing issues is to have some sort of judicial review on the enemy combatant question, which I think is exactly what we have.

[sgtclub]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...324EDT0600.DTL

With all of the critisms, the GOV should get some praise as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From the Telegraph (a Tory paper):

• New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.
  
  The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.
  
  According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.
  
  "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Constitutional rights

I don't know enough about this area of the law, either, but isn't there any consideration given to the fact that we are at war? If so, then I think those opposing his status as enemy combatant don't see the war on terrorism as a real war.

If Iran attacks us, and american muslims were to take up arms and fight against US forces on US soil in support of Iran, would their actions be crimes or acts of war? I think it would be pretty clear that they were enemy combatants and should be treated as POWs if taken prisoner. POWs don't get lawyers to represent them.

I see Padilla being the same as an American who fights againt the US in a war and is captured - an enemy POW.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...324EDT0600.DTL

With all of the critisms, the GOV should get some praise as well.

I agree. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, but there have been several plots that were uncovered and arrests made.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much longer our 1000 batting average is going to hold up. I fear it is only a matter of time that one will succeed, and if those opposed to renewing the Patriot Act have their way, the odds will be even higher that the bad guys will succeed.