Some terrorists might have families and/or friends who have birthdays and such. Perhaps one of these occasions might be an instance of a financial transaction.
Unless you were arrested and held indefinitely without charges. In which case, due process and the rule of law become somewhat moot.
There is nothing in this thread which suggests that has happened. So far as I’m able to discern, this thread is for the purpose of answering questions raised by this Yahoo article.
Notwithstanding, while I agree the law on this issue is in a state of flux right now, it appears that in some cases it is legal for the government to detain persons indefinitely. If the detainee in question is an enemy combatant, it appears that this is permitted.
If it’s legal, then, obviously, the rule of law is not moot… it’s observed.
Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose, but when freedom is gone, there is nothing left to lose.
And there is absolutely no legal definition or criteria whatsoever for what constitutes an “enemy combatant.” There is no procedure or hearing for making that determination. There is no means or opportunity for an innocent person to prove it. All an “enemy combatant” is, is someone who’s being detained. The government has no burden of any kind to prove that a detained person is an “ememy” or a “terrorist” or even to define what those terms mean or don’t mean. calling it “legal” is hardly a defense.
Sure. Sure it is.
However, the due process of becoming an enemy combatant is what? That the prosecution says you’re an enemy combatant?
“I just figured it was because the Democrats were back in power.” --Grandpa Simpson
Bingo! The legal machinery is already in place to remove any individuals legal rights by clasifying anyone they desire as an “enemy combatant.”
Neat, ain’t it? Welcome to The Land of The Not So Free.
That is why suspected terrorists aren’t given trials, or probable cause hearings.
Great - there goes my retirement plan
Isn’t there a GQ about some guy’s roommate randomly receiving checks, and he found that the group sending him money had something to do with the Shiites?
I think I’m going to go point this thread out to him
Dear Sire:
On Beahalf Of The Honoruble Usama Bin Laden, I Am Asking For Your Assistance In Transferring The Sum Of $10,000,000 USD (ten Milloin Dollars) From Our Bank Accounts In Afghanistan In Behalf Of The Jihad. For You’Re Assistance in this Matter you Will Receive a Fee of 10% (Ten Per Cent) of the Moneys Transferred. Please Reply ASAP With Your Banking Account Infromation As The Crusader Imperialists Are Near And Time Is Of The Essence…
This administration has already argued in open court that it feels it has the right to indefinitely detain a person who, for example, donated to a charity which, unbeknownst to them, turned out to be funneling money to a suspected terrorist organization.
At the time, the argument applied only to foreign nationals. However, since we have recently seen an attempt to convict a US citizen on the basis of “secret evidence”, I have little doubt that the administration would quickly apply the same standard to American nationals if it felt it could get away with it.
If the US Congress declares war on the Ducky of Grand Fenwick, and US troops march on the Duchy, and exchange gunfire with Fenwickian soldiers, killing some of them, what level of proof does the government have to offer that those soldiers were killed legally, and to whom?
At present, the US has not declared war on anything and has no defined enemy. The “War On Terror” is a political catchphrase, not an actual war.
What is the due process for deciding if someone is an “enemy combatant?”
Piss off the White House? Have the misfortune of having brown skin and an association with Islam?
Bricker, you seem to want to have it both ways. If it’s okay to detain somebody without a hearing if there’s evidence that they’re a threat to national security and it’s okay to detain somebody without real evidence because they’ll be released at their hearing, where is the line drawn? Once you’ve argued away the need for a standard of evidence before the detention or a prompt hearing after the detention, you’ve eliminated any reasonable restraint on government powers to detain anyone at will.
Not donating at least $5,000 to the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. 