Q: What do you get when you cross Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan?
A: I’m not quite sure, really. But whatever it is, somebody needs to get it a Midol and a history book.
I touched on this in a brief reply to Greenwald yesterday (in his post, he calls me “one of the most intense enemies of American values,” which is true, if by “American values” Greenwald means “preening moralism trumps the dispassionate discussion of difficult questions”) but I may as well repeat it here: I believe anyone who is really serious about protecting both the US and our civil liberties would spend more time discussing how best to address the Constitutional problems raised by the incorporation of sympathetic US citizens into the arsenal of international terrorist organizations, and less time taking the “principled” stance of defending the civil liberties status quo that those terrorists rely upon to operate, unhindered, as part of their embed war strategy.
A few key questions that interest me and that I’ve attempted to grapple with from my position as an “enemy of American values”: at what point, if any, does a US citizen1 lose the protections of citizenship (for instance, Jose Padilla was plotting a number of attacks on the homeland and may in fact have been higher up in the al Qaeda hierarchy than was previously revealed; and Yaser Hamdi was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan)? And does the fact that the US is on an active war footing (under a bi-partisan resolution)—and the citizen in question is fighting actively for the enemy—have any legal impact on that status? Further, what is the legal status of military tribunals, when should they used, and who is fair game?
I am of the position that a law-enforcement paradigm doesn’t work when prosecuting a war—that the criminal justice system is no place to try citizens who have taken up arms against their country in the service of a foreign power—but I recognize that such a position carries with it Constitutional tensions. Unfortunately, those who prefer to hyperventilate about how “our” civil liberties are being taken away from us (a position I don’t believe it is particularly difficult or brave to assume, incidentally) seem less interested in trying to address and reconcile these legal questions than they do in creating showy defenses of liberty that are, when all is said and done, nothing more than opportunities to purchase a bit of cheap grace at the expense of those who are trying to address a threat they recognize as both real and, from a pragmatic perspective, designed to take advantage of the openness of our society and the constitutional protections we grant our citizens.
And for what it’s worth, these questions interest me not because I’m “really scared that Al Qaeda is going to kill” me, or because I am “one of the most intense enemies of American values,” but rather because they speak to our long-term commitment to fighting and defeating a particular type of enemy, and to our ability to adapt our system to face new challenges that have been created with the express purpose of exploiting that system.
****
1In Hamdi, the court upheld the designation of enemy combatant; in Padilla v Hanft, the 4th Circuit rejected Padilla’s claim that his having been captured on American soil negated the “narrow circumstances” of the Hamdi decision, overturning a lower court ruling.
Good God, where the hell did he come up with that? And how did he miss all the um, judicial review?
Q: What the fuck has Glen Greenwald ever done for or to defend American values besides thrumming his [theorectical] hairy beanbag and being a pretentious prick?
What an absolute bag! NSA might have his phone records (and it might not). The IRS has 30+ years of detailed information on him. His Alma Mater has every thing about him, from race to his extracurricular activities in middle school. Where’s the goddamn privacy in any of these spheres (and we can go over any other organization as well, from the bank to his corporation to the local police and insurance agent).
He is a petty opportunist. He lacks convictions besides the demonstrably false (that foreign terrorists–arrested here or abroad–belong anywhere near the US justice system; this alone is risible enough. It is not much better for US-born [citizen] terrorists.)
Why doesn’t Greenwald follow his own side’s advice and pull on a pack and a rifle.
Hey, stupid, don’t you get it yet? “American Values” means “whatever we liberals and lefties want.” and so it shall be: 94% marginal tax rates, endless regulation of business, trust the UN to do the right thing, impeach Bush for war crimes, give Willis a raise, etc. COME ON, ISN’T IT OBVIOUS? SERIAL LIAR! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, MAN! PASS THE DONUTS!
Oy – I need another drink…
Did you know that the government sees where all of your mail comes from and where everything you send out goes?
THE U. “GEORGE W. BUSH” S. POSTAL SERVICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! GET YOUR FILTHY EYES OFF MY MAIL, NEOCON!!!
And would you make sure you close the door on the box all the way? It’s supposed to rain, and I’m expecting the new Victoria’s Secret catalog.
tw: It’s an impolite society we’re growing into.
Jeff,
You need to set Greenwald straight. None of this “intense” bullshit. By God, if you’re going to be an enemy of American values, we damn well expect you to be effective, too. Take the losers at ANSWER–now they’re intense passionate enemies of America, but impotent as hell.
By God, we expect more than just effort young man. Now get out there and destroy the Constitution.
There used to be an old adage that went:
“Conservatives are Liberals that have gotten mugged and Liberals are Conservatives that have gotten arrested.”
Today, it’s probably more accurate to say that:
“Conservatives are Liberals after getting brain transplants and Liberals are Conservatives after being brain donors.”
I still can’t determine the reasoning behind transferring Padilla back to the Federal Courts. I know, I know, Mona/Greenwald/acthole, etc. say that because there was no way in hell the Administration would prevail in SCOTUS – but I’m not entirely buying that.
Any ideas?
I’m going to guess that they’ve gotten all they’re going to get out of him in terms of intel, and they figure they’ve got enough to keep him on ice via the court system for a good long time. That being the case, there’s no upside to take the chance of having precedent set against them by the SCOTUS that might tie thier hands if and when the next Padilla turns up.
The briefs and arguments in the various enemy combatant cases contained proposals for how to handle these situations. So did some of the opinions.
But I do like “active war footing.” Conjures up images of USO shows, full employment, and a downtown teeming with neon lights and the ever present danger of a huge Army/Navy fight.
IGNORE ACTHOLE
Sound and sage advice. I’m taking it.
EVERMORE.
I don’t know why it is that anyone that actually is concerned with enemies determined to kill Americans is called a “bedwetter” and “scaredy scaredy”. I really do take those people at their word – they want to kill us, and have been somewhat successful in doing so. Maybe because people have shot at me before with the intent of killing me….maybe that is why I sorta take it serious.
The bottom line is that people who are captured under arms in wartime are either prisoners of war or illegal combatants.
Neither prisoners of war nor illegal combatants need to be “tried” for anything in order to be held during hostilities.
This is in fact the true state of “international law” on the subject despite intentional misrepresentations made by people whose only motivation is to undermine the efforts of this administration – to the detriment of the interests of the United States.
Or they’re afghan or iraqi civilians. A lot of whom have guns. And live in warzones.
Who needs The Fourth Geneva Convention anyway?
Only actus, when the Bush-Rove-Cheney-Hitler Hegemony finally throws him into the death camps after such a looooooong wait…
/attention to the TTP
proudvastrightwingconspirator  There’s what I once thought was a joke dating back to the Great Depression;
A census taker approaches a tumbldown shack in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl and is met by the weatherbeaten father of the family.
The census taker identifies himself and pulls out his questionaire:
“Sir, how many children do you and your wife have?”
“We gots us five boys.”
“Congratulations. And what are your political affiliations?”
“We’s all of us Democrats. Ever one. Well, ‘ceptin’ the youngest. Little bastard took to readin’…”
The bottom line is that people who are captured under arms in wartime are either prisoners of war or illegal combatants.
Padilla wasn’t captured “under arms.” He was captured as an unarmed civilian on US soil based on (presumably) specific intelligence indicating that he was planning to blow up apartment buildings. Not on a battlefield pointing a gun at our troops. I’ll pass for now on whether “wartime” is being used properly here.
Padilla is more similar to McVeigh than to a random Taliban soldier. And McVeigh’s “abuse” of his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair and public trial didn’t prevent him from getting exactly what he deserved.
I still haven’t seen anyone explain why Padilla should be summarily executed without seeing the evidence against him. I hope that everyone could agree that, regardless of what legal framework should be applied to al Qaeda members, press releases from the administration do not meet the minimally accepted standard of evidence. I’m also not sure I understand why, if the evidence is so damning and ironclad, we can’t just try and fry the guy the way we normally do for traitors.
Why am I not surprised that acthole’s understanding of history comes from a John Belushi movie? And not even a good one, at that.
Jose Padilla is an American citizen, and the Constitution guarantees him a right to a jury trial. Plain and simple, end of story. Doesn’t matter if he’s a card-carrying member of al-Qaeda who worships Hitler on the side. Doesn’t matter if he was found on the subway with a dirty bomb in his underwear. He is a citizen, so he gets a trial. That’s what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court agreed in the Hamdi case. The Constitution stands, period.
This has nothing to do with foreigners, or military tribunals, or marginal tax rates, or the UN, or whatever. This is just about the Constitution. And if you’re a real conservative, you believe the Constitution should be upheld. If you believe otherwise, you’re not a conservative, you’re a fascist, and you don’t belong in this country.
the criminal justice system is no place to try citizens who have taken up arms against their country in the service of a foreign power
Okay, Jeff, if you’re going to take this position, could you please clarify some things for me? (Please, I’m new here, I’m not a lefty, and these are serious questions.)
1) Do you think Congress should pass a law suspending habeas corpus for the duration of hostilities with al Qaeda? If not, why?
2) Since the Constitution is very clear on the definition of and legal status of treason, do you think the Constitution needs to be amended to divorce treason proceedings from the normal civilian justice system? If not, why?
3) How do you allow for oversight to prevent abuses of a separate judicial system for terrorists? (I’m not even talking about trivial matters like evidentiary rules – more like use of torture-based confessions, mistaken identity, or manufactured evidence.)
4) How far do you favor applying this novel judicial process? Since I fully support incinerating al Qaeda members but still manage to get called an America-hating traitor for my libertarian views, I’m a little cautious about making it legal to “disappear” US citizens.
Actually, the Fourth wouldn’t apply to protect me from my own government.
History? Its just an image it conjures.
In the other thread, you brought my attention to this case. Citing this case does show you’re not a Bush-Kultist. The Bush admin tried to have it vacated. Then-judge Luttig slapped down the DOJ’s argument.
The Bush admin tried to have it vacated. Then-judge Luttig slapped down the DOJ’s argument.
Recall, also, that the reason Luttig was so engraged was that the administration argued for the indefinite detention based on their claims that Padilla was an extreme danger to national security who couldn’t be entrusted to the criminal justice system. The administration’s change of heart suggested that they either didn’t really care how dangerous he was, or that they were just lying through their teeth to begin with. Luttig’s ruling implied that he found both explanations likely.
I’d also appreciate any administration supporters explaining why moving the Padilla case was appropriate. If you don’t think it was, aren’t you a little concerned that the administration isn’t taking the issue very seriously?
By the way, Luttig’s ruling specifically says that “the government has now taken the position that our decision of September 9 should be withdrawn entirely.” (I urge anyone who hasn’t read the entire ruling yet to do so. It’s pretty concise, and loads of fun.)
Can’t speak for Jeff, but will, Nat.
1) Is not necessary. Padilla met and was recruited by a foreign power. He effectively nullified his citizenship. I’ll let the legal guys argue whatever they want to argue. But we did not do this with John Mohammed and his Islamist sniping and are not doing so with the Tar Heel terrorist. There is a difference here, one of affiliation with a foreign power which is nontrivial.
2) Terrorism is not necessarily treason, or just treason. Treason is also nearly impossible to prove–intentionally–which proves the point; civil courts are the poorest solution to terrorism.
3) Military courts and tribunals judge and punish, with death and life in prison, American citizens all the time. It is possible, we have done it, and are in fact doing it.
4) To fundraising, propoganda, all lines of supply and demand and to Islamic clerics and preachers who preach the Hamas/Hezbollah/Taliban/aQ/line of BS.
Preach hate and terror and incite to violence; expedited trial to hell. Operate a charity that funnels money to child murderers; expedited trial to hell. Learn to fly on behalf of a terrorist organization; expedited trial to hell.
The foreign connection is key, for me at least. With that, military trials are an attractive option and a purely rational one.
The terrorists are not just breaking civil statutes. They are active in opposition to the US government. While this is always treason, it is not JUST treason but conspiracy to commit war crimes, on behalf of fellow illegal combatants.
BTW, Sullivan is really, really, really fucking gay. Gayer than actus…almost.
TW: Ever see a Retarded Typing Telephone Pole make whoopee?
Sigh
TW: make
So purely on the basis of 1st amendment activity, one could end up in Padilla’s place? Now this ought to set you apart from the bedwetters!
Padilla met and was recruited by a foreign power. He effectively nullified his citizenship. I’ll let the legal guys argue whatever they want to argue.
Again, Padilla’s actions fits the Constitutional definition of treason, and there’s a specific legal framework for it. No mention of forfeiture of citizenship. If you think that’s the appropriate legal action, okay, but it’s not the current law, nor is it within the power of the president to make it law. Only Congress can do this.
I still think this is circular reasoning anyway: “Padilla is a traitor, therefore he doesn’t deserve Constitutional rights, therefore we don’t need to prove in court that he’s a traitor.”
Terrorism is not necessarily treason, or just treason. Treason is also nearly impossible to prove–intentionally–which proves the point; civil courts are the poorest solution to terrorism.
I agree with the first part. But if terrorism isn’t necessarily treason, then not all terrorists necessarily forfeit citizenship. I don’t think that a Tim McVeigh or an Eric Rudolph (or, hypothetically, an eco-terrorist) needs a special court, and no one else seems to be arguing that they do. And in Padilla’s case, it sounds like the evidence for treason is very specific and strong, so I still don’t understand why the civil courts wouldn’t work.
Military courts and tribunals judge and punish, with death and life in prison, American citizens all the time
This is a fair point, and I confess that I have no idea what legal safeguards are in place in the UCMJ. However, this has always been applied to persons in the military, not to civilians unless under martial law. There is a strong incentive within that system to treat soldiers fairly and impartially, and secrecy is difficult in such a situation. There is no incentive to treat Jose Padilla fairly or impartially, and the mere fact that he’s a civilian means that no one in the military other than his prison warden and guards knows or cares who he is.
I wanted to avoid bringing up this scenario, but it really does express my concerns: what prevents an innocent civilian from being thrown in a military brig without access to lawyers or family, tortured or abused, tried in secret, or even executed, under the system you have in mind, if the only evidence necessary is the government’s claim that this civilian is in fact a terrorist? This is not just a hysterical liberal nightmare – scenarios like this are why we have Constitutional rights in the first place.
Preach hate and terror and incite to violence; expedited trial to hell.
I live in Berkeley, among apologists for some of the most vicious mass murderers in history. I have no doubt that some of my neighbors would be happy to see me marched off to a slave labor camp, or just lined up and shot as soon as the revolution comes. We won the Cold War without executing or even imprisoning these idiots, and I don’t see why this needs to change now.
The terrorists are not just breaking civil statutes. They are active in opposition to the US government.
Have you actually read the Constitution? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
It’s really pretty simple.
The US Code is divided into titles. Each title deals with certain specific areas of law.
As an example, while I am on Active Duty, I am subject to Title 10 (the UCMJ). Otherwise I am sjubject to Title 32 and state laws.
In the case of war, tehre is a very definite distinction to be made between Title 18 (Criminal Statutes) and Title 50 (National Security).
The distinction is in the US Attorney’s theory of prosecution and under what title he is able to obtain indictments.
The Grnad Jury had the opporunity to set the stage for Padilla way back when, and made a choice, a choice that has stood up to every level of judicail review so far.
Additionally, I don’t recall any of the defense team ever claiming improper indictment.
The misrepresentations of the Geneva Convention continue I see.
As well as the misrepresentations of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t “guarantee” a jury trial to all American citizens as has been often noted by the Supreme Court.
As for what prevents detentions by the administration of citizens without trial, as has been shown by the Wilson administration, the FDR administration and the Lincoln administration, the answer is very little.
One can argue whether or not Padilla was a combatant; although I’d love to see anyone show how different he was from the US citizen in Ex Parte Quirin. But outside of Padilla, if you don’t understand that combatants are subject to detention until the end of hostilities without trial, then you are making up “international law”.
[pretending to ignore the sound and smell emanating from the pew to leftward]
A little required reading, Nat.
Note this in particular:
I would greatly appreciate a rational discussion about civil liberties in our society. Maybe I’m being paranoid, but watching the news at how Muslims in liberal democracies are agitating for special treatment and multiculturalists more than happy to meet them half way and try to give them the special treatment had provoked a variant on the old Lenin phrase, ”Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” The variant being ”Western liberal democracies will give us the civil liberties with which we will bring jihad and impose shari’a in their lands.”
I would really like for a rational discussion on how this could be made to never happen. Unfortunately a discussion with a member of the “reality-based” community usually devolves into accusations of racism, nativism, and fascism.
Was Padilla like Quirin? was he being charged by a military commission—which is some due process? or was he just held with no due process at all
No. He isn’t. That you would ask that question proves you haven’t read the decision, to which I graciously provided a link.
Typical. I do the work for you and you still blow it off.
Jeff, by defining you (with a name like Goldstein) as an enemy of the people (and their values), doesn’t that just jump the inherent irony level to lethal dosages. All that would be required in response are a few choice quotes from 1984.
Muslims in liberal democracies are agitating for special treatment and multiculturalists more than happy to meet them half way and try to give them the special treatment
This is in Europe, not the US. I fully agree that some European nations have created their own problems. But the issue isn’t really civil liberties, it’s assimilation. Honor killings are evil and illegal, but they’re not an example of why civil liberties are bad.
“Western liberal democracies will give us the civil liberties with which we will bring jihad and impose shari’a in their lands.“ I would really like for a rational discussion on how this could be made to never happen.
Guns. Lots and lots of guns. I don’t really think it’s more complicated than that. We won the Cold War against an enemy with a similar objective, and we can certainly defeat a technologically inferior foe. How does this relate to Padilla? How will giving him a fair trial enable the jihadists?
Heaven forbid Brazil has a Fourth, moron.
tw: Car.
<blockquote>
That you would ask that question proves you haven’t read the decision, to which I graciously provided a link.
<blockquote>
I know the decision. Like I said in my comment: its about military tribunals, not simply indefinate detention. I don’t know why it resolves Padilla’s indefinate detention.
The quote you provided is also about him being charged, and accused. What I suspect, but don’t know for sure, is that this is not the case with Padilla. Or wasn’t, before. But now the bush admin is wimping out and killing us all by trying the guy that cynically and purposefully is using our civil liberties against us.
Where does this stop?
Does every individual on a battlefield have to be mirandized and tried? Clearly not, that’s absurd.
Are we required to offer tials to all those who we have the relative leisure to do so? All enemy prisoners? We never have done so before. I’d also point out that the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits trial of a prisoner except for criminal offenses they may commit while detained.
So what’s the distinction in your mind that requires that these persons, or those persons get access to our courts or not, to our rights or not?
Where do you draw the line? For me it’s simple: those who war against our country don’t get to use our courts or enjoy our freedoms.
What criteria do you suggest?
Geez, bedwetter, got it. On my next forced march, I’ll think of your calm and collected valor in the face of…ummm…BushCo, I guess. But it is pretty rich coming from a guy who is screaming in utter fear of pistoleros enforcing the US border and doing his part in his twilight struggle against BushHitlerHalliburton.
RTO covered the rest, Nat.
We do not have to execute every person involved in terrorism, but punishments should be levied. A principal difference between the Cold War and the Long War is that the Long War is a very hot war in more ways than one. If a blind eye can be turned to the usual Stalinist idiots when war was through third parties, it cannot when the useful idiots support ongoing military action.
Plus, the Soviet apologists SHOULD have been imprisoned or exiled. My family comes from Poland and Ukraine. I will not cede that point.
It doesn’t show. Your responses betray not even a passing familiarity with it.
Best take it up with the Supreme Court then. Even the dissent in Rumsfeld v Padilla (no due process? What?) doesn’t challenge the majority in it’s application.
No. Not about “him.” About someone else.
You think youa re being ironic and you still manage to misattribute.
The courts wimped out by requiring trial in US courts. Padilla should either be still in detention or tried by military tribunal.
Somewhere between O’hare airport and “every individual on a battlefield.” Why do people bring up battlefields and armies? Padilla was caught by law enforcement.
Oh, that an a tip from the Pakistani military intelligence that Padilla had spent time in a Taliban military training camp in Afghanistan–whose battlefields we were and are fighting on–and was planning a combat mission in America.
Other than that, no connection to fucking militaries or armies or battlefields.
How fucking dumb are you, actus, really?
Are you sure? Did you read Jeff’s footnote?
But it’s not a law enforcement issue, not any more than my capturing Warren Jeffs (UNLAWFUL FLIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTION – SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR; RAPE AS AN ACCOMPLICE) would make it a military matter.
The FBI caught Quirin, et al as well. Still failing to demonstrate any knowledge of this case.
Now. Answer the question; where is the line?
Its not no connection. But we do have all the time in the world. Its not like we’re landing on the beaches of Normandy and reading people their miranda rights and having prompt probable cause hearings. its the latter image that people evoke when talking about people caught ‘armed’ on ‘the battlefield.’ And thats not the case with Padilla. That was a tip from a foreign government that led our cops to capture someone here.
RTO, I’m e-mailing you some chalk. Please make actus draw out an outline and send me the pics.
Of course, I’m going to leave before actus scrapes bottom and begs for a MOAB to clear the shale for him. He’s nearly rock bottom now; can’t get much lower.
There is no line. There are lawyer spawn to feed; 100% employment strategies to fulfill.
Which is why Padilla will be retained…indefinitely. See how that shit works, actus?
Greenwald says:
1) That’s not what semicolons do.
2) There hasn’t been a single President under whom any fewer than four of those five ever more terrifying new tyrannies existed in potentia. Quite a few more of our Dear Leaders than are popularly credited for it put them into practice. Suddenly pretending to give a fuck is a ludicrous pose.
At least I hope it’s a pose, because this bedwetting fear of Li’l Chimpy’s Hitlerian superpowers is hilarious, rather than demented, if it’s all a put-on.
Bush may be the most unexceptional President ever. Not one thing he’s done is unprecedented, or even pushes at the borders of averageness. (That’s why I don’t like him.) At worstâ€â€if all the corruption and cronyism and [scary alliterative word] are as rampant as we’re endlessly told they areâ€â€he’s Kennedy II with LBJ’s press image and welfare programs.
Rubber sheets!
For me it’s simple: those who war against our country don’t get to use our courts or enjoy our freedoms. What criteria do you suggest?
Also simple: as a libertarian, I think everyone deserves certain freedoms and rights, even the people I hate, and I think there should be a universal standard of freedoms and rights and a universal standard for losing them. Furthermore, I believe that the government may only take action that has been specifically authorized by law (and no, I do not believe that the AUMF is a blanket authorization for everything the administration wants).
I also think that the government should need a legally approved reason to hold someone in military detention. Capturing someone on a battlefield is a great reason. The fact that they’ve transferred Padilla to civilian jurisdiction and released Hamdi to Yemen or some other piece of desert suggestst that they didn’t have a coherent reason in either case. (Which I find perplexing, since they claim to have captured Hamdi on a battlefield.)
This further suggests that the government is either stupid or dishonest, and thus can’t be trusted with the power to lock up US citizens without trial. I generally assume that all governments are by definition stupid and dishonest, which is why I don’t favor giving them any more power than absolutely necessary. I also assume that anyone with power will abuse it unless subject to extremely strict rules and oversight. And no, I would not feel differently under a Democratic administration. Anyone who wants government to be large and powerful shouldn’t be trusted anywhere near a position of authority.
So, I think Padilla should have been tried in civilian court, and probably locked up for life if the administration’s claims are true. Hamdi, who knows, since he obviously wasn’t guilty enough to put to trial, but if he was a Taliban fighter he should have spent the rest of his life in jail too.
Things become clearer.
We already have this. There have been no violations of them as they are currently formulated. Are you suggesting amending what exists? Are you suggesting stting our Constitution and BoR as a new univeresal standard? Or allowing universal jurisdiction to all in US courts?
Of course it isn’t, but it is worded quite broadly. A situation the Congress could alter at any time….
I think you read too much into it. Still, there are legally approved reasons to hold someone in military detention. Not liking them doesn’t negate them.
Only if your reasoning so far is sound, which seems unlikely since you continue to agitate for things to be enacted that already exist.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. Perhaps you should try seeing beyond these biases.
I’ll persist in this: Those who war against us should not have access to our civilian courts or the leagal guarantees that come with that. Distrust of government can’t be a valid reason for thinking differently–government involvement becomes greater and more pronounced otherwise. So, again, what do you suggest?
Somewhere around Quirin. Didn’t Quirin get a fair hearing? The case talks about a military commission.
But Padilla, at least according to the Bush admin, now, appears to be on the law enforcement side of the line. So with cases like this we’ll keep on narrowing down the line. It will be somewhere between a battlefield, with actual war footing, and cops following a tip and arresting someone.
I don’t think he’ll ever get out of jail. No. Not unless he’s like the people we’ve mistakenly held in Gitmo. Which would be a total suck.
And the more it looks like war, the more warlike they should be treated. A Bomb going off in OKC? depends on how warlike that is. A guy in O’hare? also.
actus,
You persist in comparing Padilla to the wrong defendant in Quirin. As such you will never get the point.
Do some reading, then come back and we’ll discuss it.
BoZ, using semi-colons like that is acceptable. I would refer you to William Safire’s How Not to Write, I think. Anyways, compare:
Nothing is wrong with that, but semicolons slow down the rhythm of a sentence and separate the ideas. The highlighted part reveals something of what can happen if there are commas alone separating complex predicates. Are they looking for miscreants or did they arrive with the Prez?
And you know exactly what information is being passed.
Greenwald is usually better keeping his mouth shut, and might be better breaking his sentence up, but he is technically, grammatically correct.
The rest is spot on.
I’m talking about Quirin the case. They all got tribunals, no? It was one ruling for all. It was about tribunals trying people. Padilla wasn’t getting one of those.
Try reading it and finding out.
Well you here you go:
Trial by commission. Padilla wasn’t getting that. Was he?
God, it’s a nonstop circle jerk with Actus jumping right in the center every damn time…
Dude, get a dog and a tube of peanut butter and leave us alone.
tw: tired, as in my love pump.
You are a weasel.
Focus on the issue at hand rather than attempting further tangents.
Of the 7 defendeants in Quirin, Padilla’s situation is most like one of them in particular. That being the case there is precedent established that the President can designate enemy combatants and detain them asusch, necessary and obvious prerequisites to trial of whatever sort or any disposition.
Trial by commission hasn’t been at issue in any proceeding for Padilla to date, only his defence’s dillatory fillings which have held up the process of finding a disposition.
Jeff’s question, the subject at hand, is not trial by commission but where a defendant’s US citizenship and otherwise concomitant liberties might effect or be effected by being a defendant in such a case.
That being the case, attempts to change the subject notwithstainding, Quirin does offer insight on the issue and is in fact settled law.
Well it has been a long day at the House of Horrors. My bun is very tight resulting in a hair headache. Not to mention my feet ache from wearing the FMPs. Needless to say I am cranky dominatrix which is never good. Well I come here and what do I find … an Actus slim trail all over the comment section.
Actus it is time to be bent over, tied up, gagged and have your behind paddled red until your ass color and politics match.
TW: “Water†torture could also be fun. It is important to be multicultural. There is so much to be learned from the East.
Ummm, do you…would you need to calibrate your instruments, schoolmarm?
A friend of mine wants to know. A friend. Honest.
dude, you’re the one with the idiotic ‘go look it up’ attitude and then you tell me it was a court ruling that sent Padilla to a regular trial? Quit the sanctimoniousness man, before you end up as useless as the rest of these jokers.
In the link you provided, there was Haupt. That was it. His particularity was his citizenship. But I don’t see whats so magical about this. Assuming Quirin applies to Padilla, Padilla gets to be tried by a military commission. But he wasn’t.
Thats great. But Quirin says go have a tribunal. One such tribunal was won in in the supreme court for some of the Gitmo guys.But not Padilla, because of his problematic habeas jurisdiction.
And where is the line? Somewhere between Haupt and Padilla, at least thats what the Administration wants to push.
Verc asked:
He represented neo-Nazi Matthew Hale, who later solicited the murder of a federal judge. Yet I’m guessing that GG has never called Hale one of the most intense enemies of American values; that sort of opprobrium is saved for Jeff.
There have been no violations of them as they are currently formulated.
I’ve just been arguing that habeas corpus rights have in fact been violated. Scalia and Stephens agree with me, even if you don’t.
No one answered my question: what’s to prevent the FBI from arresting me, a US citizen, and throwing me in a military brig for all eternity because they claim I’m a terrorist?
it is worded quite broadly. A situation the Congress could alter at any time
Like how Congress clarified the powers it was granting the President to exclude torturing prisoners? (Something, by the way, that it was Constitutionally empowered to do!) Congress was accused of “interfering” by the right wing.
Perhaps you should try seeing beyond these biases.
My biases used to be reflexively pro-government and even authoritarian (in the “people can’t take care of themselves” sense). This changed after 9/11, when I started reading about the historical roots of totalitarianism, and about modern governments like the Taliban or Iran. Paul Berman’s “Terror and Liberalism” was a major influence along with “The Road to Serfdom”, but Rousseau, Smith, Burke, and Marx all contributed.
On the side, I’ve also been reading about all of the petty offenses by our own governments, federal, state, and local, and the various ways in which officials break the letter and spirit of the law because they think it’s part of their job. Everyone from Congress to your local police department is filled with people who’ve forgotten that they’re servants of the public, not bosses. And I think, “Thank God we have enough rules in place to keep these people from really fucking up our lives the way they’ve always dreamed.” Because these are the sorts of people who in other circumstances become mullahs or commissars or bureaucrats out of “Brazil.”
So here I am, on a vocally pro-War-on-Terror website, arguing that unchecked government power is a bad thing to people who think I’m an idiot for saying so, and realizing that I’m probably the only person who didn’t take September 11th as just another confirmation of what I already blindly believed.
This is sweet. Jeff Goldstein says:
Come on. Dick Cheney or Alberto couldn’t have said it better. Let’s see if I get it.
The enemy hates our freedoms. Our system and ‘civil liberties’ are unique in the political world, and our clever enemy will use our system against us to further their evilness. Therefore, we must systematically chop and chop and chop at the ‘civil liberties’ of Americans until there are no longer any ‘civil liberties’ to protect.
I am so damned interested in protecting my precious, thin-skinned ass from an enemy, real or imagined, right now, and am willing to irrevocably TRASH the future of this society for my imagined precious safety. What a hog.
You have it totally backwards, pal. Who wins? The ‘enemy’ wins when he can influence us to trash the Bill of Rights because we’re so afraid he may use it against us. Did you finish high school?
Idiot. Historical moron. Windbag. Mouthpiece. Dittohead thug.
Show me how your “civil liberties” have been violated. You can’t, because they haven’t, and they won’t be. Have a cookie and sit down. Next.
We know the enemy has already defeated you, but you don’t speak for me. Tell it to the 9-11 families who lost members due to the actions of those using the tolerance provided by our Bill of Rights against it. When did the Bill of Rights for enemy combatants and Islamic terrorists get ratified by the people of the US? Didn’t think so. Stop advocating for murderers. It’s tacky.
Today’s word is “irony.” You were captain of the debate team, no doubt.
You know that last part was born in your head, right George?
http://www.goarmy.com, if they’ll have you.
I know – don’t engage actus…ahem.. “PETITIONER HAUPT” you damned fool – address his situation. And you get a “D” in Con Law for your persistent inability to answer the question. I swear, if you EVER try that in front of anyone in an adjuacatory position – from the lowest ALJ to the Highest Court you can manage to appear in front of – you’ll be looking for bail, or your malpractice insurance policy papers to see what your policy limits are per occurrence.
.
‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact’
.
Nat,
I don’t think there’s a soul who reads this site regularly who disagrees with you that “unchecked government power is a bad thing.” The question is how much and what kind of checking is necessary to balance civil liberties and national security (do we or don’t we already have the tools we need, do the tools need adjustment because of the very different-from-original technological/communications/transport regime in which we now live, etc.), and that’s where you part company with Verc and RTO and so forth. I myself am too unschooled in the law to feel that my opinion even needs airing – but I agree with Jeff that a debate on the issue is (a) important, (b) overdue, and (c) the way we do things in these parts. So – thank you for helping to advance the debate! It doesn’t get done without opposing viewpoints.
Ditto to actus, who seems to have been actually engaged, for a change, somewhere in this thread – at least his/her characteristic pose of amused detachment accompanied by one-liners seems to have slipped… Thanks to all for taking the time to address this stuff.
TW: court
[cautiously pulls up gas mask, sniffs…]
BoZ â€â€
Just thinking of Kennedy facing 9/11 with his Cuba Missile Crisis uppers and his Addison meds fighting it out in his hindbrain fills me with absolute terror.
Misrepresentations abound still. In the Quirin case, the military tribunal wasn’t deciding if the German saboteurs could be held as implied above – it was deciding whether or not they would hang for their status.
Tired of rooting for the totalitarian team in the Usenet gun groups, George?
As for the Actus slime trail problem, there wouldn’t be one if the rest of you didn’t forget in the span of about 60 minutes from the last reminder, not to play with the telephone pole! Jesus wept.
Nat,
Jose Padilla had an attorney right from the beginning. Her name was Donna Newman.
So your fears of being “disappeared” by the FBI are so much emotional bullshit. The reason I distrust so many “libertarians” like yourself is because your opposition to our government is primarily emotional, not primarily rational. The rational arguments by RTO Trainer have had no effect on your fears, have they?
tw: Support your local sheriff.
Thats on page 6 of the pdf. What’s the question, again?
Social, brotherly compassion is the heart of that most elegant and refreshing of ideologies: conservatism. The classically, historically, artistically functional is worth cherishing and conserving, in all its myriad, humblingly beautiful ways.
Meaning that slapping the living shit out of chronic, self-abusing liars until they spew teeth is for their own good. Plus, they love it!
But what happens when he knows that we know that he knows? That we know?
Watch your mouth, bitch. I did too finish high school.
tw: Surface-to-air miss-iles.
Instead of his clients whose first amendment rights he is defending. But who knows, I’ve seen a first amendment litigator make clear their client is a monster whose values and opinions are unshared by the community. Sounds like a standard tactic. Its also true.
I did. He got put into a military commission. Padilla? I don’t think so.
Yes. Next time they’ll skip the step where the right to counsel attaches. Funny that he was indicted, and yet the war on terror did not grind to a halt because he had his 6th amendment rights that day.
I know. It was a determination of their guilt. Padilla, and hte people in guantanamo, didn’t get that. Untill they went to court.
I simply do not see the jihadist threat as justifying the extraordinary measures that have been invoked by this administration. We have faced much more severe threats in the past.
The jihadis are interested in hurting us, but not particularly interested in converting us. For resources, they have anti-American plutocrats in the Middle East, semi-covert fundraising via “charities”, and an unending rage against us in the Middle East, which provides footsoldiers.
They do not have a significant navy, air force, armored corps, or any of the other necessities of an effective military. Think of the Mahdi Army.
However, these folks are a severe threat to our desired Pax Americana in the Middle East. Question: why do we even want a biddable Middle East? Answer: oil. Solution: a program to eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Just like the War on Drugs, the real answer is at home. I’m not terribly scared of the jihadis, but I am very scared of incompetent leadership.
Yes, I’ll be chastised for responding to Actus, but he did directly quote me:
Actus, please note that I did not criticize GG for representing Hale (though, afaik, he was not obliged to). If you’re aware of some court filing in which GG uses the sort of language about Hale that he does about Jeff on his blog, I’ll be glad to read it. I mentioned it because it says something about GG’s total lack of perspective in his attacks on Jeff.
I would further note that GG lost some of those cases. A court dteremined that GG’s arguments were not persuasive. When GG disagrees with Jeff on a point of law, he feels free to attack Jeff as an intense enemy of civil liberties. By that standard of argumentation, what would we conclude about GG’s losing battles for a neo-Nazi?
Searp is an underpants gnome.
I know what you’re doing.
Of course you’d love to have that shown to you.
Whats the lack of perspective? Defending freedom of speech is an american value.
That courts say there are limits to the first amendment.
[clamps gas mask firmly back down on face]
tw: Mother.
I’m shocked that Actus had no substantive response, aren’t you?
The lack of perspective (as Actus apparently doesn’t get it) is that people saner than he would conclude that a neo-nazi running a bogus church with followers that do things like try to murder federal judges and their families is in fact a greater threat to civil liberties than a blogger who agrees with the Administration’s legal arguments on unlawful combatants. It’s also seen in the lefties’ constant claim that the right is questioning their patriotism (as opposed to their judgment) at the drop of a hat, all the while branding those who disagree with them as enemies of civil liberties, racists, etc.
(shorter: BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!)
Actus is simply unwilling to see how GG’s over- the-top ad hominem would play out if it was directed equally at GG and his acolytes. Indeed, his comment about how I would love to see some legal filing by GG talking about what a bad actor Hale is demonstrates that he, like GG, automatically imputes bad intent to anyone who disagrees with him.
At least Actus concedes that courts recognize limits to civil liberties. But maybe he and GG see the courts as grave enemies of civil liberties for doing so.
I also found it amusing that he declares that he knows what I’m doing without saying what that is. It’s doubly funny that he’s trying that gambit at a blog run by an intentionalist. It is a nicely vague accusation, sort of like that guy who used to talk about 47 Communists in the State Dept., but couldn’t back it up.
Because I’m familiar with what GG thinks of his clients? What substantive response was possible? I wouldn’t be surprised if he thought they were scum of the earth. But also, like Jeff, entitled to the first amendment.
You’re asking about GG’s views of his client. Not of his representation of the client, but his views of the clients.
I tend to skip those posts. I realized that we were talking about way different things when we started talking about Scalia’s Originalism. I dont know what atrios or anyone else sees in them.
If a telephone pole falls in a blog and no one responds – was there a noise?
Jose Padilla had an attorney right from the beginning. Her name was Donna Newman. So your fears of being “disappeared†by the FBI are so much emotional bullshit.
Apparently you’re new here too, because this entire argument is over whether Padilla should have had access to an attorney (among other things) in the first place, and apparently everyone else here thinks he shouldn’t. So I’ll repeat the question for the last time: what’s to prevent abuses once all of the safeguards have been removed like Jeff and all of the other Bush fanboys want? Or do you actually agree that Padilla deserved a lawyer?
The reason I distrust so many “libertarians†like yourself is because your opposition to our government is primarily emotional, not primarily rational. The rational arguments by RTO Trainer have had no effect on your fears, have they?
No, because I don’t think they’re rational at all. All he’s said is “I don’t think terrorists and traitors deserve Constitutional rights”, and he hasn’t given any justification other than “terrorists and traitors are bad”, and he certainly hasn’t explained a) why we even need to deprive them of Constitutional rights in the first place, and b) what safeguards he would keep in place to prevent innocent civilians from being swept up in this. So as far as I’m concerned he’s just another closet authoritarian blinded by his ridiculous conviction that our government is made up entirely of good, honest people who want to protect us. (Which is an emotion normally associated with the left, weirdly enough. I’m sure he’ll get over it as soon as there’s a Democrat in the White House.)
OT: why “libertarian”? Is it so hard to believe that some of us actually want everyone to be free, not just us?
Welcome to another edition of “Yep, Chimpy is all that EVILE and the Jihadis are just misunderstood neurotics.”
Sad, lefties, very sad. There are people in the world who no what ACTUAL tyranny is. Go tell an Iranian B’hai, a black Sudanese, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Falun Gong deep breathers that Bushco are the equivalent of Hitler and the brown shirts. I guarantee incomprehension will be the response.
Dolts.
know.
Dammit.
Verc…
Which is why Padilla will be retained…indefinitely. See how that shit works, actus?
I know I’m “a day(or two) late, and a dollar short”…
T/W: But, you now OWN the “Actus likus a dumbass”!
“Yep, Chimpy is all that EVILE and the Jihadis are just misunderstood neurotics.â€Â
I don’t think anyone here made that claim – certainly not me, and I don’t think actus did either, and there don’t appear to be many posters here opposing the administration. In fact, although I see many references to “Chimpy” on liberal blogs, I’ve seen very few people trying to defend Islamic extremists. Only the hardcore Chomskyites go that far, and those are a tiny minority even on the left.
For what it’s worth, I think Bush is an awful president but I don’t think he’s evil, and I think jihadis deserve a horrible fiery death. I don’t think these beliefs are incompatible with each other or anything else I’ve written.
verc-
Dude, get a dog and a tube of peanut butter and leave us alone.
D@mn, I remember a girl in HS whose nickname was “Skippy”!
Of course, she wasn’t nearly as dumb as the Actus Retardicus…
schoolmarm-
Actus it is time to be bent over, tied up, gagged and have your behind paddled red until your ass color and politics match.
*Cough*Chomsky rules!*Choke*
T/W: Below the waistline… Please! ;o)
The “Dolt” remark stands, Nat, despite your libertarian claim.
Bush is not perfect (far from it, actually), but he also is not bulldozing the Constitution as some claim. Period.
nat-
My biases used to be reflexively pro-government and even authoritarian (in the “people can’t take care of themselves†sense).
Yup.
(Shorter Nat)-I’m still a “fascist” at heart, but I think GWB is doing it better than I could…
“Takes one to know one…”
nat-
I’ve seen very few people trying to defend Islamic extremists. Only the hardcore Chomskyites go that far, and those are a tiny minority even on the left.
Michael Moore.
(“minutemen”)
Former President Carter’s box at the Democratic convention.
T/W: How filled with shit are you?
That’s not what I said. What I did say was “Those who war against us should not have access to our civilian courts or the leagal guarantees that come with that.” It’s similar but not the same.
Additionally, since *you* brought it up, there are people, who are US citizens, that our society has determeind do not deserve (all) Constitutional rights, such as fellons.
You haven’t been paying attention. Those who would ally with a foreign power and make war against us, even if they be US citizens, should not have access to US courts and the rights that come with that access as though it were a criminal matter. It is not a criminal matter it’s a military matter. Again this is not a concept that I am fabricating. As a serviceman, it is the government–specifically the Army– that decides if, should I violate the law in a civilian venue while on active duty, I would face charges under Title 32 and a court-marital or Title 18 in civilain court.
If only provide a bright-line distinction in a part of the process that could easilly become very confused in determining extenuations, contingencies and cometing venues. In addition, to make the process fair so that all who are subject to it be treated the same under the law.
You’ve got boogyman syndrome. Not just anyone could be caught up in it. Not that it would be impossible for someone to have undertaken perfectly innocent actions that only made it appear possible that they had allied with a foreign power to make war on the US. I wonder though if you think that investigations, indictments, and prosecutions are simply conducted from thin air? Or if these things don’t constitute, in your mind, due process? Perhaps it’s just the common misapprehension of what an investigation is and how they work.
I can’t deny having some authoritarian is my philosophy. When taking the libertarin-touted “world’s smallest political quiz” I always come out just to the libertarian side of center and just to the right of center. Unlike you, however, I don’t think authoritarian is a curse. It has it’s place but must be balanced. Hell, I’m a soldier, so of course I have some use for authoritarianism. But I’m also a leader, I tend to guide my troops rather than drive them. I do tend to have a more sympathetic view of government officials than many; my father was a federal officer for 28 years and if you knew the men and women I do, you might have a different view yourself.
(Which is an emotion normally associated with the left, weirdly enough. I’m sure he’ll get over it as soon as there’s a Democrat in the White House.)
The ones i’ve tended to vote for. In addition to all the above, I am a Democrat.
Not that any of the above will alter your view. You’d still have to be willing to see past your biases. Don’t see it happening.
????? ?????… ?????, ????????????? ?????