# If the government can classify a citizen like Jose Padilla as an "Enemy Combatant" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2004, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821 "2004-04-30T07:52:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/41 "2004-04-30T22:17:38Z")
A tangent but quite relevant: John Walker was with the Taliban at the time when it was more or less friendly to American governmental interests, until a few months after 9/11, when he got captured. Perhaps as a nod to potential difficulties to get out of the Taliban, the government decided to try him in criminal court. So here is a question: what if you are in a group that all of a sudden was banned or outlawed, and you really can’t get out of said group without certain loss of life? What rights should one get, and what obligations does one have, when she finds herself in that predicament? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/42 "2004-04-30T22:26:15Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > What Bush is doing to the Constitution is far worse that anything carried out by Al Qaeda. This threatens the freedom of millions of citizens! Well then, thank goodness al Queda has no designs on detaining us in deprivation of our rights. As long as they just want to kill us, that will be fine. . . . But what about our right to life? Doesn’t killing us deprive us of our right to life, and our right to due process of law? And of course, if they detain us and then kill us . . . well, now I’m confused. And wait, [what’s this?](http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/2002.02.01/wor5.html) > [@](#): > > Pakistani investigators continued a nationwide hunt for the sixth day on Teusday to find a missing American journalist, Daniel Pearl, after an unknown group **kidnapped him** protesting the treatment of al Queda men being held by the US in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [And this?](http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/02404894.htm) > [@](#): > > The tapes show Al Queda operatives **practicing kidnap techniques** , making explosives, operating surface-to-air missiles, and suffocating three dogs to death with what seems to be nerve gas. So even without pointing out that what the White House is doing does not fit the definition of “terrorism” (oops, I guess I just pointed that out), I still don’t see how kidnapping and killing is any less of a threat than indefinite detentions under color of law. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > I, for one, value the Bill of Rights much higher than my personal safety, and would accept a lower level of security if that is what it takes to preserve the freedoms that our soldiers have fought and died for for over 200 years. Kudos to you, sir, for your dedication to libertarian values. And if it were just you and I in this country, I think that would be fine. But we’re not dealing with only our lives. We’re dealing with the lives of all of my friends and family. I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. And luckily, you don’t get to make that choice for everyone. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Jose Padilla will be comforted by that news, I am sure. Or are you as certain as our President that his guilt is a forgone conclusion, not worthy of consideration in our system of laws? I am not convinced of his guilt. Nor am I convinced of his innocence. But more importantly, I am not convinced that Bush has violated the Constitution by detaining him. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/43 "2004-04-30T22:45:36Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Kudos to you, sir, for your dedication to libertarian values. And if it were just you and I in this country, I think that would be fine. But we’re not dealing with only our lives. We’re dealing with the lives of all of my friends and family. I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. And luckily, you don’t get to make that choice for everyone. Only those in power get to make that choice. So your desire for a “slightly more authoritarian state” would happen without your input. Your definition of _slightly more_ probably would not coincide with those who make such decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/44 "2004-04-30T22:46:17Z")
> [@vibrotronica](#): > > No, it’s clear that the enemy combatant designation is beyond the scope of his constitutional powers. See Articles 5 and 6 posted by **Duckster** below. As I’ve pointed out, those sections don’t apply here. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can believe the Supreme Court. _See Ex parte Quirin_. > [@vibrotronica](#): > > No we’re not. We’re dealing with a terrorist organization. There is no invading army. Interesting. So what do you suppose they mean by “enemies, foreign and domestic”? And it doesn’t matter if the invading army stopped and camped out in America for a few years, and even picked up a few converts along the way. They’re still an invading army. They’re an outside force trying to overthrow the government. That’s an invading army. The mere fact that they use terrorist techniques and don’t represent an organized state doesn’t make them any less an invading army. > [@vibrotronica](#): > > This president says there is no judicial check on his action. Once you throw out the first part of the Constitution, where do you stop? We haven’t thrown out any part of the Constitution yet. Except, of course, for the amendments. And those haven’t exactly been Lay’s potato chips so far (i.e., “Once we popped, we could stop.”). > [@vibrotronica](#): > > If the president doesn’t have to answer to the judicial branch, who is going to stop him? Members of his own administration? Among others, yes. But I’ve already covered this a few times, so I’ll try not to clog up the server with repeats. > [@vibrotronica](#): > > The Patriot Act does allow for secret detentions. No, it doesn’t. If you think it does, I’d encourage you to show me which portion of the Patriot Act authorizes or even advocates secret detentions. I feel confident that you won’t be able to find one. > [@vibrotronica](#): > > Over a thousand foreign nationals have been detained secretly, and many have been deported. We don’t even know how many have been detained–all we have is an estimate from the Attorney General. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the Patriot Act put a gag order on an ACLU challenge to the Patriot Act! Cite, please? I’m aware that many foreign nationals have been detained and deported. But we do that all the time with illegal aliens. I’m very curious where you’re getting this allegation that we have no idea how many foreign nationals are being detained under the Patriot Act, since the Act includes very specific reporting requirements on the Justice Dept. And I’m also curious where you’re getting this idea that the Patriot Act gagged anyone – especially the ACLU – from challenging the Patriot Act, especially since no one else seems to have any trouble challenging the Patriot Act. If the ACLU was prohibited by the Patriot Act from challenging the Patriot Act, then who do you think told us about it? Couldn’t have been the ACLU, right? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/45 "2004-04-30T22:48:46Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > Only those in power get to make that choice. So your desire for a “slightly more authoritarian state” would happen without your input. Really? When did I lose the power to vote? ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/46 "2004-04-30T23:40:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Really? When did I lose the power to vote? Sure, you can vote – but there will only be one name on the ballot, because all the other candidates will be sent to Gitmo as “enemy combatants.” On a related note, I’ve heard that the government refuses to allow judicial scrutiny of the camps at Gitmo on the basis that the land is under Cuban jurisdiction. Hmmm… does that mean we’d have to let the terrorists go if Castro says so? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/47 "2004-04-30T23:58:56Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I am not convinced of his guilt. Nor am I convinced of his innocence. Well thank heavens no one in this country will be subjected to your peculiar brand of justice, where the accused must prove their innocence. Yet. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/48 "2004-05-01T00:07:50Z")
Age, you don’t remember the enemies list? Anyway, you are applying to this specific only. The point is what the possibilities are for all future executives in time of war. You may not decide that someone is an enemy combatant on the basis of race or or national heritage or religion or party affiliation (Arab, Japanese, Democrat, Republican, Green, Communist, Liberterian, Moslem, whatever) but some future President could, and the accused citizen could be locked up indefinitely on the basis of the Executive Branch’s say so that they have evidence that the person is an enemy. No communication with counsel. No Judicial review. No need to bring the evidence for review. Let us _presume_ that the current Executive’s evidence against this particular individual is better than the assessment pre-invasion of WMD’s, and that the intent is most noble. Then bring it through the courts. What you give Bush today you will be unable to take away from any President that follows. Such power become the one ring; it will be abused. Maybe not by this administration, but by some future one. And it will be legal if these actions stand. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/49 "2004-05-01T00:18:46Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. That is a profoundly anti-American sentiment, man. Luckily YOU don’t get to make that choice for others by yourself, either. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/50 "2004-05-01T00:27:36Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > That is a profoundly anti-American sentiment, man. And here I thought liberals were always screeching about being the unfairness of being labelled “anti-American” for their political positions. I guess that’s only unfair when it’s pointed at liberals, eh? Regardless, thank you for defining what’s “American” for me. Maybe you and Senator McCarthy would like to provide me with a list of patriotic activities so I can be more careful in future posts? [That was kind of fun!] ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/51 "2004-05-01T01:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis The White House isn’t trying to kill innocent citizens.[/QUOTE] Some innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq might disagree. Or are you only concerned with **American civilians.** ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/52 "2004-05-01T01:15:11Z")
No. Are you only concerned with misstating other people’s arguments? Regardless, I’d call BS on anyone that says that Americans are less concerned about civilian casualties than terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/53 "2004-05-01T01:20:46Z")
I would rather suffer a hundred 9/11s than to see the SCOTUS uphold the right of the administration to hold American citizens captured on American soil without due process of law, _under any circumstances_. All the terrorists can do is _kill_ us. _Our own government_, now… Man, if I don’t have my freedom, what the hell are we fighting for? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/54 "2004-05-01T01:22:28Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. . Even if both are “safe” in a jail without access to a lawyer? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/55 "2004-05-01T03:30:33Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > If the ACLU was prohibited by the Patriot Act from challenging the Patriot Act, then who do you think told us about it? Couldn’t have been the ACLU, right? [ACLU battles FBI over ISP customer data](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4856599/) > [@](#): > > The FBI can issue national security letters, or NSLs, without a judge’s approval in terrorism and espionage cases. They require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers. > > People who receive the letters are prohibited by law from disclosing to anyone that they did so. **Because of this legal gag order, the ACLU was forced to reach an agreement with the Justice Department before a heavily edited version of the lawsuit could be unsealed.** [bolding added] ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/56 "2004-05-01T15:54:38Z")
Thank you, **Mr2001**. I was just coming here to post that cite. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/57 "2004-05-01T18:19:38Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I would rather live in a slightly more authoritarian state if it would mean that my mother and girlfriend were safer. I think this statement provides some insight to the differences between the main views being debated here. While you would be comfortable living in a more authoritarian state in exchange for extra safety, **Age Quod Agis** , people on the other side of the arugment (including myself) are uncomfortable with this notion. Comments like this, though: > [@ricksummon](#): > > Sure, you can vote – but there will only be one name on the ballot, because all the other candidates will be sent to Gitmo as “enemy combatants.” are unnecessary, IMHO. While I am _very_ uncomfortable with the thought of possibly giving up some of my inalienable rights for added security, I think statements like these are strawmen (and certainly don’t help in trying to show people our POV). I think there is some good debating going on in this thread (well, _I_ think so), even if I’m not an active participant. I just wanted to add a couple of cents to the jar, in any case. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/58 "2004-05-01T22:42:58Z")
BTW Age, before you go too far patting the US on the back in your compare and contrast of how “we” don’t engage in torture and terror like those bad guys, and how our side and leadership can be trusted with near absolute power, please visit [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253807) illustrating what happens to good guys with good intentions given too much power and too little oversight. Sometimes I am ashamed to be human. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/59 "2004-05-01T23:00:14Z")
It’s downright frieghtening how some folks are apparently willing to turn over the fundamental liberties and rights of the United States just for some vague notion that this will allow the government to protect them better. It’s not even a 100% assurance of safety and security, just a vague promise that the government will _try_ to do so. Where’s that Franklin quote when you really need it? ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2004, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821/60 "2004-05-02T01:57:29Z")
I wasn’t trying to imply the President actually **would** throw opposition candidates into jail; however, it’s already been brought up as a hypothetical in this thread. > [@](#): > > If this holds is there anything to stop Bush (or some future President) from having Kerry (or some other future opposition leader) held til further notice based on intelligence too sensitive to share with the courts? > [@](#): > > Common sense, **the fact that the Bush would lose the next election,** the fact that the individuals in the Bush Admin would never go along with such an absurd idea, the fact that Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, the fact that Congress would eviserate the President’s powers and legislative agenda, etc. When asked what would **stop** the President from arresting opposition candidates if he had this unlimited power, **Age** replied that the President would lose the election if he did that. That is simply illogical, and that’s what I was trying to point out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-government-can-classify-a-citizen-like-jose-padilla-as-an-enemy-combatant/242821.md?page=4)