The abuse continues. This man will not be tried, will not be given his day in court because it is “the best way to deter future terrorist attacks”. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. The man should be tried.
Thge worst they can accuse him of is credit card fraud and lying to the FBI and he is so dangerous he does not deserve his day in court? WTF?
Not to metion that the “material witness” thing is being abused all over to jail people without due process. It is wrong and it should not be done.
It should be a crime for the government to alledge they need to jail a person because they need that person as a material witness in another case and later change the status by accusing that person who was never going to be a material witness to anything. It is an abuse of the system and it is wrong.
Due process of law is one of the most basic things for a civilized society to remain civilized. It should be respected above all. Everybody deserves their day in court.
No argument here. Friggin’ witch hunts is all this is. Ghastly business. I can understand why some rights inherent in our constitution do not and cannot apply to non-citizens, but if we intend to hold people criminally responsible under our laws, then the rights inherent to how the legal system treats people in captivity should definitely apply regardless of citizenship. Absolutely.
So, how many minutes do you think it’ll be before a Bush apologist comes in here and uses the “everything changed after 9/11, we need new laws and new procedures to fight the threat of terrorism” excuse?
How long do you think it will be before rjung constructs his first strawman? . . . oh, wait.
From the first sentence in your article:
and further down (emphasis added):
So apparently they can accuse him of worse, and in fact have accused him of worse. Did you just skip those paragraphs, or is there a reason you’ve chosen to ignore them?
First of all, I don’t think general deterrence is as much the goal as specific deterrence (in other words, keeping this guy from doing it again).
Regardless, I feel confident he will get his day in court. Padilla is getting his day in court. Padilla already filed a petition for habeas corpus, and the Judge ordered that he must be allowed to meet with his attorneys to prepare for it. And many of the people at Camp X-Ray are getting their day in court (while the rest are being released or sent home). What makes you so sure that this guy is any different?
I’m unaware of any evidence that this is being “abused all over to jail people without due process.” Do you have a cite please?
I agree that due process of law should be respected, but the key word that you’re ignoring is “law.” It is perfectly lawful to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant. So you’re not talking about due process of law at all. You’re talking about affording these guys a trial, regardless of what the law requires.
And I don’t think the right to trial “should be respected above all.” That’s a nice sentiment, but to be frank, it’s ridiculous. The right to life should certainly be respected above the right to trial. And if allowing this guy to sit for a trial is going to result in the death of innocent people, I say lock his ass up.
Incidentally, lest people look at your arm waiving and think that people are being designated enemy combatants all the time, this is also from your article:
AQG, the due process problem with having some one classified by the Administration and thereby committed to some sort of legal limbo and deprived of the benefit of all the Bill of Rights restraints on government action is, first, that “enemy combatant/unlawful combatant” is an amorphus category with, so far as I can see, no definational standards, and second, there does not seem to be any mechanism to review the characterization. In other words, an enemy combatant/unlawful combatant is any one the central government, in its unreviewable discretion, sees fit to say is one. Apparently a person becomes an enemy combatant/unlawful combatant simply when the central government says so. No agency, no court, nobody has the power to decide otherwise or require the central government to substantiate its determination. I can’t even figure out who has the authority to make the determination. Can you?
Once a characterization is made the case seems to be over. There does not appear to be any mechanism to contest the classification as an EC/UC. It is sort of a bizarre deal. It is a deal that simply invites, no, begs for, an abuse of power.
All good points. But I don’t think it’s technically true that the EC/UC distinction is either totally amorphous or beyond the power of review. As in the case of Padilla, the Courts have reviewed the government’s determination that Padilla was an EC, and have even ruled against the government in some respects. That’s due process and separation of powers at work, so we’re not totally without safeguards.
However, I admit that the category as currently defined might be a bit too nebulous for me to feel comfortable, and I don’t like the limited review to which the executive is subject. I would certainly prefer that we had public review of the cases against these people. These things would give me serious pause if the device were used with any frequency at all.
But I don’t see any reasonable alternative. The President is constitutionally required to do whatever is in his power to protect American citizens. If I was the President, I think I’d be doing pretty much the same thing. Between protecting the Constitutional rights of people that my intelligence services say are aiding and abetting terrorism, and protecting the lives of innocent Americans, I wouldn’t hesitate to go with the latter.
So, yes, the whole situation gives me the willies. But we’re dealing with the real world here, where things aren’t always black and white, and good theory doesn’t always make good practice. It would be nice to give everyone the full rights afforded American citizens at all times. It would also be nice if we could avoid using criminals as informants or if we could fight wars using only weapons that injure, or that would totally avoid civilian casualties. But these things aren’t always the best choices.
As long as we have the ultimate right of review – elections – we can protect against great abuses of power. This would be small condolence to someone that was wrongfully accused, but between protecting the theoretical rights of the accused and protecting people’s lives, I don’t think it’s a tough choice.
Wouldn’t the choice be more accurately described as “between protecting the theoretical rights of the accused and theoretically protecting people’s lives” ? It’s not as if every single possible threat exists in the real world.
Yes. I never meant to imply that they weren’t. But we’re talking about one accused vs. lots of non-accuseds (in addition to the other related benefits of a more stable society and the continuation of American institutions, etc.).
And not every single possible theoretical threat is being locked up. As I pointed out, the CNN article used by sailor shows that only three people have been held as ECs/UCs.
I used the term theoretical to emphasize the difference between the nature of a person’s rights and the nature of a person’s life. Sorry if I was unclear.
“those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve nether Liberty or Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
somthing to think about
anyhow while we are at it, why not throw people accoused of murder in jail without a trail just to be safe. living in a free socioty comes with risk. I have a question. if the goverment’s evidence is so strong, why no trial?
Sigh. The railroading of these people continue. How long will this one spend in legal limbo? Months? Years? I’m not saying that what this guy may have done (which of course will never be proven as long as he is an “enemy combatant”) is not serious or terrible, but to me, denying due process and basic civil rights is a far graver injustice.
AQG, your definition and mine of “legal” and “due process” differ. By your definition what is and was done in Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Soviet Union, China and Hitler were “legal”. All you need to have is one law saying, in effect: The Great Leader is hereby authorised to do what he sees fit in order to better serve the interests of the people. For me that is not the rule of law.
The bill of rights says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Also:
To say the president’s discretion is “due process of law” is to make mockery of what the framers of the constitution intended and to the basic concepts on which our western civilization is founded.
For me “due process” and “rule of law” mean much more. Like:
The actions of the executive are subject to judicial review as to their compliance with the laws.
Individuals are entitled to be tried in a court of law, in public trial, to know what they are accused of, to present and interrogate witnesses, to legal counsel, to not receive degrading or inhuman punishment, to appeal their sentence to a higher court, to communicate with their familes while in detention, etc.
I do not care what the Constitution or laws say in any country, those are basic principles that ensure we continue to be civilised. If the laws and practice of any country do not guarantee such basic human rights to all humans then they are wrong and ought to be changed.
Today there are hundreds, if not thousands, of human beings under the jurisdiction of the USA who are being denied these basic rights. People detained indefinitely not being charged or tried.
If they have done horrible things they should be tried and if the government cannot prove their case then they should be set free.
I remember the case of some middle eastern guy who had his own business and was a father and husband and in the days following 9/11 disappeared for months at the hands of the US government only to be freed months later because there was just nothing against him. Of course, his life was ruined, his business was ruined and his family was ruined. That is not due process of law, that is abuse plain and simple.
I remember the guys in NY who were arrested in a hotel room because they had some suspicious radios and they were held for a long time and they even “confessed” to something. The problem came when some other guy claimed the radios were his and it was shown the detained guys had nothing to do with anything. . . and yet the government got them to confess!
Checks and balances exist to prevent government abuse. Overzealous government employees will abuse their position and power for what they perceive is the better good and we need to be protected from such people.
Claiming the situation is dangerous and dire and the government needs exceptional power to protect the people is as old an excuse as governments exist. It is the argument of tyrants and dictators. The fact is that abusive governments have done much more damage to peoples than outside forces.
Spain in the Basque country has a situation which is much worse than anything America has ever experienced and yet they still maintain all guarantees to due process. The situation is so bad people are truly living in terror, not like in the USA where the word is being abused, but in true terror. The terrorists kill people often and thousands live under death threats. These days a couple of terrorists are being charged with setting off a couple of bombs one of which killed something like 20 people. And yet Spain has not resorted to secret tribunals or any curtailment of rights to due process. The USA should not do it either. It is wrong, it is immoral, it is unnecessary and it will cause more harm than good.
Something else to think about: “A well turned phrase does not necessarily make a better idea.” Age Quod Agis, Straight Dope Message Board, 2003.
But since you seem fond of the reasoning of famous personalities, here’s one from United States Supreme Court Justice Jackson: “There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Your problem isn’t with my definition of the words “legal,” “due process,” and “rule of law.” Your problem is with the English language’s definition. Again, what you’re espousing isn’t the rule of law, it’s the rule of principle. It’s the application of doctrines that don’t comport with our system of laws.
Cite? Please note that the people at Camp X-Ray are going to be tried.
You’re right. We should totally abolish our own government. That way, the damage will be minimized. . . . Oh, wait, that makes no sense.
The question isn’t who has done the most harm in the past, but which method creates the most harm in the present.
Are you seriously contending that people in America don’t live under the threat of terror? Is that a cuckoo clock I hear ringing?
The rest of your statement is patently false. From Human Rights Watch (emphasis added):
I hope that your moral outrage is not reserved solely for the US. I await your thread decrying the practices of Spain.
The mere fact that some of the people accused turn out to be innocent does not mean that the whole system should be scrapped. Otherwise, we would have to scrap the justice system in its entirety. Someone is found “not guilty” of murder? No more arrests for murder. Someone is found “not guilty” of a speeding ticket? No more speeding tickets. Aside from the practical problems of requiring absolute certainty of guilt prior to investigative detentions, your method is going to result in many more injuries and deaths that could otherwise have been prevented.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think that when you have knowledge of the existence of a terrorist network and the ability to do something about it, it is a far greater injustice to allow terrorist networks to thrive, multiply, and spread the seeds of destruction and death.
I’m not saying the government should be given all the arbitrary power it wants to lock up every potential threat. There’s certainly some balancing that needs to go on. I just think the balance right now weighs in favor of the detention of a few ECs/UCs under the right circumstances.
>> Your problem isn’t with my definition of the words “legal,” “due process,” and “rule of law.” Your problem is with the English language’s definition. Again, what you’re espousing isn’t the rule of law, it’s the rule of principle. It’s the application of doctrines that don’t comport with our system of laws.
Yes, I believe in certain basic principles which are reflected in the language of the Constitution of the USA. The fact that something may be legal does not make it right. I am sure the Soviet Gulags, the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the extermination of Jews by the Germans were legal strictly speaking. They were still morally wrong and I would not support them. I am saying what the government of the USA is doing is wrong and, therefore, should not be legal.
>> Please note that the people at Camp X-Ray are going to be tried.
Besides the Guantanamo camp the media has reported hundreds of individuals arrested in the USA and who are still being held. Holding them for months and years before trying them or releasing them infringes on the most basic right to a speedy trial.
>> You’re right. We should totally abolish our own government. That way, the damage will be minimized. . . . Oh, wait, that makes no sense.
No, it doesn’t and I never said it. Why did you inject such a stupid remark?
>> Are you seriously contending that people in America don’t live under the threat of terror?
>> The rest of your statement is patently false. From Human Rights Watch (emphasis added): <snip>
I hope that your moral outrage is not reserved solely for the US. I await your thread decrying the practices of Spain.
I believe that information to be incorrect but since we have a thread open dealing with that issue we can discuss it there. If it turns to be correct you can count me as being the first one to condemn it. The first one.
>> The mere fact that some of the people accused turn out to be innocent does not mean that the whole system should be scrapped.
I totally agree. I just want the accused to enjoy the right to the protection of the law, to not be held without being charged and to be able to defend himself against the charges. Not much to ask from a civilised society.