Well theoretically Bush COULD snatch somebody and send them off to one of his torture camps for political reasons or no reason at all. There is no criteria for “enemy combatant.” It’s quite literally whoever the President says it is and he has no burden ever to prove anything. You literally live in a country where the President has been given the authority to disappear people without ever having to explain himself or prove anything. Maybe he WON"T disappear you just for being a dissdent, but the point is that he can if he wants to. I don’t know why that doesn’t scare the shit out of everyone.
So an agent of an alien entity counts as a non-alien?
And theoretically, you or I could do those things, too. But rjung wasn’t talking about what could possibly happen if everyone ignored the law. He was talking about what’s legal and illegal. And all of those things are illegal.
That’s an interesting statement, especially considering you made it in a thread in which Cratylus-3 appears to have quoted the statutory definition of “Unlawful Enemy Combatant.”
No, I don’t. But then again, I live in the US. Where did you think I live?
Because the rest of us realize that the things you’re talking about are illegal. There’s a chance that a President will ignore the law and do terrible, terrible things, but there was a chance of that happening before this law existed.
And the reason I don’t spend a lot of time fretting about it is because I think the chances of the President making me disappear are very low. The chances of the President making me disappear are significantly lower than the chances of a terrorist act in the United States making more Americans disappear. The chances of the President making me disappear are significantly lower than the chances of a drunk driver making me disappear. The chances of the President making me disappear are significantly lower than the chances of some psychotic drifter making me disappear. In fact, I believe that the chances of the President making me disappear are significantly lower than the chances of me winning the lotto, making out with Giselle Bundchen, and quarterbacking the Oakland Raiders in the 2007 Superbowl. (Hey, I’ve got a strong arm.)
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but I’m not sure I agree with this statement. I believe this is the statement to which you’re referring in the report you’ve cited.
First, CF stands for “Coalition Forces.” That’s not the same thing as the US.
Second, the estimates of certain coalition military officers is not the same thing as US Intel’s estimate. Sounds to me like these were off-the-cuff estimates, and not official estimates.
Third, the statement refers to the people arrested in Iraq, and not the people detained in Gitmo. Hopefully, the innocent people were released in Iraq before being sent to Gitmo (or other detention facilities). The quote above leaves that open as a possibility.
I don’t mean to imply that it’s fine to arrest innocent people, or that 70-90% isn’t a surprisingly high number. But I don’t think this particular cite supports the proposition that 70-90% of the Gitmo detainees are innocent.
How do you mean? If you’re not from the U.S., you count as an alien.
Depends who you ask. This administration has argued that it has the power to detain persons, whether citizens of the US or not, for an indefinite time (forever) only upon the designation of the President or the Secy of defense. They have also argued that those detained people need not be given a trial, or even informed of what they did wrong. And this administration is of the opinion that all of that is not illegal.
I forgot, does the President also now have the authority to use secret evidence against accused “enemy combatants,” where the defendent isn’t allowed to see/hear/inspect/challenge said evidence used against him?
“Oh, he’s guilty, and we’ve got the secret evidence obtained from warrantless wiretaps. We won’t show it to you, but trust us, he’s guilty as sin…”
The analysis in the Los Angeles Times of today ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-habeas18oct18,0,1067382,print.story?coll=la-home-nation ) says that this will curtail habeas corpus rights for noncitizens in the US, including (noncitizen) permanent residents, even if they are arrested inside the country’s borders.
As noted above, these numbers refer to prisinors in Iraq. Probably not to far fetched to think that you could flip the number for Gitmo prisionors. Perhaps 70-90% of them are guilty of activily waging war against the US of A. That’s still a lot of innocent people that are being locked up without a trial, but it is a war. Innocents suffer in war zones all the time. And like I stated above, we had the option of killing many of them instead of taking them prisinor in most cases. Most likely many that were keep alive were for the intellangence opportunity that they presented.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care for most of this presidents policies and did not vote for him. But these guys were captured in a military setting and are not citizens of the United States so a military trial would seem to be the best option.
We should never have gone into Iraq and should have fought the war on terror in Afganastan agaisnt the real enemy, the Taliban, but this President didn’t have the guts to do that. 
They made similar arguments in the past. But then the Supreme Court weighed in on the subject (against the admin), and as a result, this law was passed. I doubt the admin has said such things since.
If you’re aware of any such statements since this law passed, I’d be curious to see them. Otherwise, I think everyone – including the administration – agrees that it’s illegal for the government to hold US citizens for an indefinite time without trial or access to counsel.
This is the key point. Without the writ of habeus corpus, we no longer have the right to go before a judge and argue that the government has incorrectly labeled as an an unlawful enemy combatant. Be very afraid people.
Wherever I ask the question, there isn’t consensus on
what is or is not legal per this law. Certainly we can speculate on
what is or isn’t constitutional, but there is some question as to whether
any member of the executive branch would be spanked for believing
this to make any person, citizen or not, an enemy combatant subject
to detainment.
The fact that it is so debatable whether this applies to US citizens on
American soil is cover for extrajudicial imprisonment and worse. It
is de facto a revocation of my right to a jury trial, because if I
am unjustly detained, and the individuals involved choose to abuse their
privilege, what recourse do I have?
Oversight from other branches of government appears
to be optional, so what is the difference between “this law may revoke
everyone’s habeas corpus” and “this law does revoke everyone’s
habeas corpus” when they’ve locked me in a room and thrown away the room?
-Crat
I am so glad you have such faith in this administration. Where you get that faith, I have no effin’ clue. Maybe we can wait, since the law has only been signed, what? 2 days?
Oh, so if it’s only %30 percent, and they are all furriners anyway, it’s OK to leave them rotting in prison with no chance in hell of ever even having thier side of events heard.
And I was worried about rights!
Why do I hate freedom so much?
Tris
I don’t know why this thread has taken such a glum tone. Look on the bright side people. It is the end of Geneva Convention protections for people serving in the US armed forces. Remember all those times you’d hear all that bleating about mistreatment of captured US servicemen and women. Be happy, those days are over. The new law has made it open season on each and every one. There’ll be no more grumbling from those nostalgic veterans, who talk too much anyway. No, the time for them to shut up is now.
Welcome to the new era when it is the duty of every enemy of the US to torture, rape and murder each uniform they capture.
For sober commentary, read these.
I don’t know why this thread has taken such a glum tone. Look on the bright side people. It is the end of Geneva Convention protections for people serving in the US armed forces. Remember all those times you’d hear all that bleating about mistreatment of captured US servicemen and women. Be happy, those days are over. The new law has made it open season on each and every one. There’ll be no more grumbling from those nostalgic veterans, who talk too much anyway. No, the time for them to shut up is now.
Welcome to the new era when it is the duty of every enemy of the US to torture, rape and murder each uniform they capture.
For sober commentary, read these:
Immoderate response
In yet another brilliant commentary, Keith Olbermann should put the fear into all of us:
I agree- you may be an American citizen, but all they have to do is say that you aren’t and you have no way to get to a judge. They could take any one of us away from our homes in the dead of the night, whisk us away to be mercilessly tortured, and held forever without seeing a lawyer or a judge.
I’m sorry, that Olbermann quote is just moronic. How are you going to get a court hearing? I assume he means other than the various military trials and federal court appeals that the law specifically provides for. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to be the military judge who’s trial goes to the DC court of appeals / Supreme Court when I’ve denied an american citizen the right to prove his citizenry. That is a career ender.
If you’re going to assume that they’ll violate THAT part of the law, what the fuck to they need this law for in the first place? They can just as easily violate existing law to take away our rights as wait patiently for some new law to be signed so they can violate that one instead.
This new law has a built in appeals process that goes outside the military, if the military wants this law to stay on the books, they’re not going to abuse it. Start picking citizens up off the street and deny them the right to prove they’re citizens, this law will be gone in a week.
And what obligation does the government have to ever haul you in front of a judge?
I’m not sure what you mean here. This law provides for you having a trial in front of a “military judge”, who you can either believe is an honest jurist or a dishonest lackey, your choice. If the trial results in a guilty verdict, you can appeal to a non-military court where there are plenty of regular old judges to talk to.
If you’re talking more generically, then I don’t see how this particular law changes anything. The government has obligations to treat you in accordance with how the law says they should. If you expect them to ignore that with respect to this law, then can very well ignore that with respect to the laws we already have. If they wanted to, they could pick me up and throw me in a basement cell somewhere and nobody would be the wiser, whether or not this law is on the books.