Mass-Detentions Legalized by Congress; American Citizens Declared "Enemy Combatants"

[Nonphixion]

The White House Warden - Los Angeles Times

The White House Warden
Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.

September 28, 2006
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Legal residents who aren't citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president's suspicions.

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of Rights. The Korematsu case — upholding the military detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II — has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.

By Bruce Ackerman,
BRUCE ACKERMAN is a professor of law and political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism."

[Diesel66]

Trying to think this out




I declare war on the US and recruit members to overthrow the current govt. In the war, some of our members are captured.


Should the govt try them all as committing treason or merely hold them as POWs ?

[motivez]

You've created a nice little strawman there.. assuming that everyone who would be detained under this is going to be guilty of a crime. You didn't do a very good job knocking it down though.

Any American who commits a crime -- against the government, against another individual, whatever, should be tried under our legal system.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Trying to think this out

I declare war on the US and recruit members to overthrow the current govt. In the war, some of our members are captured.

Should the govt try them all as committing treason or merely hold them as POWs ?

When we did it 200+ years ago the British tried most Americans they captured for treason. Many spent time on POW ships, but were eventually released or tried in a British court of law (though, admittedly, those Courts were pretty damn kangaroo-esque).

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

You've created a nice little strawman there.. assuming that everyone who would be detained under this is going to be guilty of a crime. You didn't do a very good job knocking it down though.

Any American who commits a crime -- against the government, against another individual, whatever, should be tried under our legal system.

Not trying to create a strawman.


If it was a Canadian fighting against the US, he could be held as a POW. I dont see how a similar setup is so evil if it is an American captured in battle. Notice talking about battle like Walker-Lindh or someone trying to blow up an airliner. Not talking about someone captured on the street.

[motivez]

Well, you sure did a good job of creating one for "not trying". Your assumption is that these people are somehow guilty. Yet, they no longer have to be tried. They no longer have to be shown any evidence against them. And, they no longer have the right to petition for release. Oh, but in the mean time while we're so busy NOT proving their guilt, we're going to go ahead and torture them!

You've created another one in this post assuming that in order to be declared an enemy combatant, they have to be captured in battle.

Sorry, bzzzzt, wrong!

Padilla was not captured on the battlefield. He was arrested here. They had no concrete evidence, only hearsay, and double blind secret witnesess who "knew a person who knew a person who potentially knew he did this or that (ps where's my reward money/bounty mistah us intelligence person?)" which is now completely acceptable as an evidentiary standard under this law.

He was never brought to trial on any of that information despite the fact that they held him for years over it. When they finally transferred him to civilian courts, he was accused of something completely different than they originally held him for.

And the definition of what constitutes "terrorism" or "enemy combatant" is so broad in this law that it should NEVER be entrusted to a single man or his organization. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not the Attorney General. Not the Secretary of Defense. No single person. It should ALWAYS have oversight through Congress and the Judiciary. It no longer does.

Honestly, what was left of the America our founders envisioned died last night around 6PM est with the passage of this bill. And it did so not in a mushroom cloud, but with laughter and pats on the back from the GOP controlled Congress who pushed this through.

But they couldn't have done it themselves. No. Harry Reid's ineffectual bullshit style of "leadership" as Minority Leader -- agreeing to cloture, along with the spineless Democratic party who, on a national level, refused to take a stand on something more important than 99% of the legislation they've ever filibustered ( I can't think of anything else more improtant, but there might be, so I qualify it with leaving room for that 1% ) because they were afraid they might be told yet again that they "Support rights of terrorists".

Apparently they're too chickenshit to spit out the word SUSPECTED. Or CONSTITUTION. or BILL OF RIGHTS. Or any other number of phrases that they could have kicked the Administration's ass with.

The world doesn't need to question our moral basis anymore.. it's obvious we no longer have one.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, you sure did a good job of creating one for "not trying". Your assumption is that these people are somehow guilty. Yet, they no longer have to be tried. They no longer have to be shown any evidence against them. And, they no longer have the right to petition for release. Oh, but in the mean time while we're so busy NOT proving their guilt, we're going to go ahead and torture them!

You've created another one in this post assuming that in order to be declared an enemy combatant, they have to be captured in battle.

Sorry, bzzzzt, wrong!

Padilla was not captured on the battlefield. He was arrested here. They had no concrete evidence, only hearsay, and double blind secret witnesess who "knew a person who knew a person who potentially knew he did this or that (ps where's my reward money/bounty mistah us intelligence person?)" which is now completely acceptable as an evidentiary standard under this law.

He was never brought to trial on any of that information despite the fact that they held him for years over it. When they finally transferred him to civilian courts, he was accused of something completely different than they originally held him for.

And the definition of what constitutes "terrorism" or "enemy combatant" is so broad in this law that it should NEVER be entrusted to a single man or his organization. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not the Attorney General. Not the Secretary of Defense. No single person. It should ALWAYS have oversight through Congress and the Judiciary. It no longer does.

Honestly, what was left of the America our founders envisioned died last night around 6PM est with the passage of this bill. And it did so not in a mushroom cloud, but with laughter and pats on the back from the GOP controlled Congress who pushed this through.

But they couldn't have done it themselves. No. Harry Reid's ineffectual bullshit style of "leadership" as Minority Leader -- agreeing to cloture, along with the spineless Democratic party who, on a national level, refused to take a stand on something more important than 99% of the legislation they've ever filibustered ( I can't think of anything else more improtant, but there might be, so I qualify it with leaving room for that 1% ) because they were afraid they might be told yet again that they "Support rights of terrorists".

Apparently they're too chickenshit to spit out the word SUSPECTED. Or CONSTITUTION. or BILL OF RIGHTS. Or any other number of phrases that they could have kicked the Administration's ass with.

The world doesn't need to question our moral basis anymore.. it's obvious we no longer have one.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, you sure did a good job of creating one for "not trying". Your assumption is that these people are somehow guilty. Yet, they no longer have to be tried. They no longer have to be shown any evidence against them. And, they no longer have the right to petition for release. Oh, but in the mean time while we're so busy NOT proving their guilt, we're going to go ahead and torture them!

You've created another one in this post assuming that in order to be declared an enemy combatant, they have to be captured in battle.

Sorry, bzzzzt, wrong!

Padilla was not captured on the battlefield. He was arrested here. They had no concrete evidence, only hearsay, and double blind secret witnesess who "knew a person who knew a person who potentially knew he did this or that (ps where's my reward money/bounty mistah us intelligence person?)" which is now completely acceptable as an evidentiary standard under this law.

He was never brought to trial on any of that information despite the fact that they held him for years over it. When they finally transferred him to civilian courts, he was accused of something completely different than they originally held him for.

And the definition of what constitutes "terrorism" or "enemy combatant" is so broad in this law that it should NEVER be entrusted to a single man or his organization. Not the President. Not the Vice President. Not the Attorney General. Not the Secretary of Defense. No single person. It should ALWAYS have oversight through Congress and the Judiciary. It no longer does.

Honestly, what was left of the America our founders envisioned died last night around 6PM est with the passage of this bill. And it did so not in a mushroom cloud, but with laughter and pats on the back from the GOP controlled Congress who pushed this through.

But they couldn't have done it themselves. No. Harry Reid's ineffectual bullshit style of "leadership" as Minority Leader -- agreeing to cloture, along with the spineless Democratic party who, on a national level, refused to take a stand on something more important than 99% of the legislation they've ever filibustered ( I can't think of anything else more improtant, but there might be, so I qualify it with leaving room for that 1% ) because they were afraid they might be told yet again that they "Support rights of terrorists".

Apparently they're too chickenshit to spit out the word SUSPECTED. Or CONSTITUTION. or BILL OF RIGHTS. Or any other number of phrases that they could have kicked the Administration's ass with.

The world doesn't need to question our moral basis anymore.. it's obvious we no longer have one.

Hot damn, we disagree a lot but this is a damn good post

I think this new bill is being blown out of proportion however, that doesn't mean I agree wtih the bill. In fact its a little scary and somethign that I believe shouldn't have passed. We're passing shit like this while leaving the damn border wide open to anyone who wants to enter Makes NO sense at all.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, you sure did a good job of creating one for "not trying". Your assumption is that these people are somehow guilty.

Duh, I was talking about people fighting the govt. If I am talking about murderers, do you think I am talking about those who killed in self defense ?

You've created another one in this post assuming that in order to be declared an enemy combatant, they have to be captured in battle.

I am talking about a specific instance. Like Walker-Lindh. Not this bullshit about anyone captured in public.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Hot damn, we disagree a lot but this is a damn good post

I think this new bill is being blown out of proportion however, that doesn't mean I agree wtih the bill. In fact its a little scary and somethign that I believe shouldn't have passed. We're passing shit like this while leaving the damn border wide open to anyone who wants to enter Makes NO sense at all.

i think we will all start seeing more of these jose padilla type stories in the news. outspoken liberals will soon be "terrorist sympathizers", thus making them enemies of the united states. it sort of sounds far fetched, but not really when you start to think about it.

iraq is a totally pointless war. its really hard to believe a seasoned politician like bush doesnt know its pointless. so its starting to seem that iraq is a sort of diversion to a power grab.

[SICKGUY]

and did i call this in my thread, or what?

[thatguyoverthere]

That was indeed a great post by Motivez.

I know this question has been asked before, but would Republicans really be comfortable having this power in the hands of a President Hillary Clinton?

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

That was indeed a great post by Motivez.

I know this question has been asked before, but would Republicans really be comfortable having this power in the hands of a President Hillary Clinton?

i dont think an argument like that can really be made. this president has done a terrible job, so at this point, i have an open mind about all the candidates.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Padilla was not captured on the battlefield.

the battlefield is here

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I know this question has been asked before, but would Republicans really be comfortable having this power in the hands of a President Hillary Clinton?

yes

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes

What if she arrested some members of the GOP for not securing our nuclear and chemical plants, and for waitng a full 5 years before deciding to secure our ports?

It seems reasonable, I would definitely call those exact actions "coddling terrorists."

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes

No they wouldn't.

They aren't comfortable with her even being a senator.