One more enemy combatant

[Optihut]

AQA wrote:
** 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.**

Uhm, who suggested this? If the government actually has evidence, then an arrest and a trial is very much warrented. Everybody agreed on this.

The issue that is up for debate is inventing some bogus term “enemy combatant” and justifying breaking your own rules (by making new rules for the new terminology) with that. Indefinitely locking up people without a trial is not in the interest of the citizens, it is in fact the first step to make the place unsafe for the citizens. A government, which isn’t following its own rules or comes up with excuses and exceptions to those rules, sets a bad example. This may be a first step, who knows where it will lead, once the door is open?

[hijack]I already felt weird giving out the address, where I am going to stay, when entering the country. I would feel weird to step out of my shoes in the name of security. And I would feel even weirder being arrested for a hunch and not being given a fair trial. The development is very scary and all these panic edicts need to be reversed before they reach a point where the fear of the government becomes a bigger issue than the fear of terrorism.[/hijack]

[sailor]

WTF is it with treating judges like they are the enemy? All I am asking is that when the police detain someone, after a reasonable period of a few days, if they have any evidence they present it to a judge who will authorize the detention (or they set the guy free). What’s the problem with having a judge review the case? Are American judges not to be trusted?

Optihut, I have a Chinese friend who is a student in the US right now and she wanted to return to China this summer because she misses her family but she is terrified of leaving the country because she has heard terror stories of students who were not readmitted so she decided to stay put for the summer. There is already a very serious fear of the US government among foreigner in the USA after so many horror stories. The panic must be acute among muslims and middle easterners.

[zigaretten]

Timeline for Al Marri:

Oct. 2, 2001………………Questioned by FBI
Dec. 11, 2001……………Questioned by FB
Dec. 12, 2001…………….Taken into custody as a material witness
Jan. 28, 2002 (48 days)……Charged and arrested (credit card fraud, lying to the FBI, etc.)
Feb. 6, 2001………………Indicted

At some point his trial was scheduled for Jan. 12, 2003. I am somewhat confused on this point, but it would appear that at least part of the reason for this delay is that Al Marri initially waived his right to be tried in Illinois and agreed to a trial in New York. He later “withdrew his consent to be tried in New York” which resulted in another indictment, this time by an Illinois Grand Jury, on May 22, 2003.

The above is likely related to the fact that on Dec. 23, 2002 new charges were filed which supposedly link Al Marri to the attacks on 9/11. This resulted in a postponement of his trial date.

June 23, 2003………….Al Marri declared an Enemy Combatant

June 25, 3003…………”Lee Smith of Peoria, one of al-Marri’s attorneys, said a writ of habeas corpus was sure to be filed…………Such a writ is the legal process by which prisoners can challenge their incarceration.”

It looks to me like Al Marri has had no end of “due process.” He still has an attorney (in fact, more than one) and he will be represented if and when he is tried by a military tribunal. Given that he was facing a maximum of 60 years in prison on the initial charges alone, and that the government now claims to be able to link him to the tragedy on 9/11, it may be a mistake to assume that he is eager for a trial to take place. He may well be better off if he is simply held until the end of hostilities requires his release.

As for suggestions that the government is abusing the material witness statute, the following is from the From the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics:

Under Clinton (Reno):

1998………3,400 federal material witness arrests.
1999………4,008 federal material witness arrests
2000………4,203 federal material witness arrests

Under Bush (Ashcroft):

2001………3,679 federal material witness arrests

We’ll have to wait for data on 2002 ‘cause the Feds are slow, but according to a report submitted by the Justice Department to the House Judiciary Committee in May of 2003:

As of January 2003, the total number of material witnesses detained in the course of the September 11 investigation was fewer than 50.

So………if I am to be appropriately upset over these 50 people who have been detained since Sept. 11, I first need to understand why I wasn’t totally aghast at a 25% increase in federal material witness arrests over the last two years of the Clinton administration and the 1,411 people which that increase represents.

In other words, why all of this concern now? Surely, if anything, we have a better reason to hold people now than we did in 1999.

[sailor]

zigaretten, thanks for the information which sheds some light on the case and, I agree, does make it look not as bad as it looked like initially.

>> Taken into custody as a material witness for 48 days

I have a problem with that if he never was really considered a witness. i have a problem with the material witness law being abused for purposes for which it was not intended. The material witness law seems excessive to me and much abused. I agree with http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030506_lehman.html which i linked to before. The fact that it was used by Clinton is no excuse. I find it wrong in any case, without regard to who uses it. Other than that, if there is credible evidence against him and he is being processed in a reasonable manner then I have no problem. I just want the government to respect basic principles of due process.

>> In other words, why all of this concern now?

Now is when I have become aware of this practice. I would have disapproved of it before if I had known it. I am also against forfeiture laws since the day I learnt about them and the only reason I did not express myself against them earlier is that I did not know they existed.

>> he will be represented if and when he is tried by a military tribunal.

I oppose military tribunals and the whole “enemy combatant” charade. A combatant is a guy who was in combat and calling him “enemy combatant” is just a way to smear and prejudge him. Give him a fair trial in a civil court. he deserves no less and America deserves no less.
My beef is not with president A or with president B nor with party A or party B, my beef is standing for what I believe to be right. I think the material witness law is wrong, and the military tribunals are wrong.

[sailor]

>> He may well be better off if he is simply held until the end of hostilities requires his release.

What “hostilities”? It makes no sense. He is not a POW. If he has committed a crime then he should be punished upon conviction and if he has committed no crime then he should be set free as soon as this is determined.

[capacitor]

Hey folks, hope you know this is nothing to Black people, who already are illegal combatants since the day they were born.

The rest of you will being o know how that feels.

[torben]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**Hey folks, hope you know this is nothing to Black people, who already are illegal combatants since the day they were born.

The rest of you will being o know how that feels. **

:rolleyes:

[Optihut]

torben wrote:
:rolleyes:

[Age_Quod_Agis]

sailor:
I oppose military tribunals and the whole “enemy combatant” charade. A combatant is a guy who was in combat and calling him “enemy combatant” is just a way to smear and prejudge him.

Optihut:
The issue that is up for debate is inventing some bogus term “enemy combatant” and justifying breaking your own rules (by making new rules for the new terminology) with that.

The term enemy combatant is not a “bogus term,” and it certainly isn’t “new terminology.” It has been around since at least World War II, when it was applied to German sabateours captured on American soil. The Supreme Court has upheld the UC/EC concept in at least three cases: In re Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1941); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 7, 11, 13, 19-20 (1946); and Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341, 355 (1952). The preeminent constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has made reference to it when referring to an exception to the general rule against military jurisdiction over civilians. 1 American Constitutional Law 300-01 n. 185 (3rd ed. 2000). It’s a perfectly acceptable, legally defined term, and its roots go back long before the Bush administration and 9/11.

[tomndebb]

The term enemy combatant is not a “bogus term,” and it certainly isn’t “new terminology.”

This is technically true. Al Marri, whose case pronpted this thread, has been named an “enemy combatant” which has been used before.

Of course, Jose Padilla cannot be legitimately called an “enemy combatant” because the term only applies to non-citizens and the Bush administration is simply lying in the case of Padilla.

The confusion about terms arises from the bogus term “unlawful combatant” that the administration has applied to the people held in limbo in Guantanamo. There was no such term prior to the administration’s decision to hold them outside the territorial U.S. so that they would not be compelled to treat them as either criminals or prisoners of war. Neither the administration nor Congress has ever defined “unlawful combatant,” so that term means whatever Ashcroft or Rumsfeld need it to mean on any given date.

[zigaretten]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
Of course, Jose Padilla cannot be legitimately called an “enemy combatant” because the term only applies to non-citizens and the Bush administration is simply lying in the case of Padilla.

From U.S. Supreme Court Decision Ex parte QUIRIN, 1942:

Petitioners’ main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged…….

Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful………

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war………

[sailor]

As I said, the fact that the Supremes said it is legal might make something technically legal but it cannot make a wrong a right.
The SCOTUS says the executive can label anyone an “unlawful combatant” and then that person has no right to due process? Ok, that makes it technically legal but it is still very wrong. I am not arguing legal, I am arguing right from wrong.

Furthermore, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al Marri was never in any kind of combat so the charge is ridiculous. Since there is a war on drugs they could call drug dealers “enemy combatants” and send them away to Okinawa to be imprisioned indefinitely. It stinks.

[Optihut]

AQA wrote:
The term enemy combatant is not a “bogus term,” and it certainly isn’t “new terminology.” It has been around since at least World War II, when it was applied to German sabateours captured on American soil. The Supreme Court has upheld the UC/EC concept in at least three cases: In re Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1941); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 7, 11, 13, 19-20 (1946); and Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341, 355 (1952). The preeminent constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has made reference to it when referring to an exception to the general rule against military jurisdiction over civilians. 1 American Constitutional Law 300-01 n. 185 (3rd ed. 2000). It’s a perfectly acceptable, legally defined term, and its roots go back long before the Bush administration and 9/11.

Apples and Oranges. If you can’t see the distinction between two nations at war with state sponsored spies and saboteurs on one hand and private persons accused of terrorism on the other hand, then that’s scary.

Under the original definition you provided here, you are not an enemy combatant. Under the “bogus” one, you may very well be one. But even in your case, I’d protest if the government suddenly decided to lock you up indefinitely.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

Optihut:
If you can’t see the distinction between two nations at war with state sponsored spies and saboteurs on one hand and private persons accused of terrorism on the other hand, then that’s scary.

I do see a distinction, I just don’t see a valid one. Neither does the Supreme Court, apparently. Whether the sabateour is acting on behalf of Germany, al Queda, or Microsoft, the individual’s actions are the same, the harm is the same, the government’s interest in stopping that harm is the same, and the applicable law is the same. What difference should be affecting my reasoning?

Optihut:
Under the original definition you provided here, you are not an enemy combatant. Under the “bogus” one, you may very well be one. But even in your case, I’d protest if the government suddenly decided to lock you up indefinitely.

I’m confused by this. I appreciate the fact that even in my case, you’d protest my wrongful detention, but where did I originally define enemy combatant, and where did I give a “bogus” definition? Under what definition am I an enemy combatant? Am I missing your point?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

sailor:
I am not arguing legal, I am arguing right from wrong.

That’s fine, but your going to have to explain to me why it’s more moral to defend the right of an accused to a speedy trial than it is to defend the lives of individuals potentially harmed by terrorist acts.

[Optihut]

but where did I originally define enemy combatant, and where did I give a “bogus” definition? Under what definition am I an enemy combatant? Am I missing your point?

I think you missed my point, but unfortunately that was rather my fault as I wasn’t clear enough on what I meant. I’ll clarify:

You did not give a “bogus” definition. The definition I was referring to, was your post I quoted. Ok, so it’s not really a definition, but rather an example that the term “enemy combatant” has been around for quite a while.
I took the liberty of extracting that going by the example you provided, back in '42 “enemy combatant” had to be an actual “combatant”, meaning someone who works for government A, which is at war with government B. This wouldn’t include a microsoft employee and I think it shouldn’t, for including the microsoft employee opens up the doors for abuse. Maybe we’ll get lucky and nothing overly evil will come out of not having the distinction, but since I don’t trust people in general, I wouldn’t bet on it.

With “bogus” definition I meant the current status, that “enemy combatant” can also apply to people, who aren’t even fighting in a war, but who are suspected of terrorism. It’s something that gives me personally the creeps, hence I added a “bogus”, but we can drop that addition as it doesn’t really add to the debate and was just a means of voicing my disdain over the whole EC issue.

Right now you are not an enemy combatant under either definition. However, if the government can label people “enemy combatant”, even when there is no “real” war involved, then everybody could be called an EC on a whim. As I said, probably nothing too evil will come out of this, but the potential alone is something that should be fought, because when push comes to shove, it’s going to be too late to do so.

That’s fine, but your going to have to explain to me why it’s more moral to defend the right of an accused to a speedy trial than it is to defend the lives of individuals potentially harmed by terrorist acts.

Because one doesn’t rule out the other. You can arrest someone and give him / her a fair trial and by doing so, you can also protect people from terrorist acts, if the person turns out to be guilty. Locking people up on a whim isn’t protection from terrorism though, it’s rather alienating some of the people the government is trying to protect and thus quite counterproductive.

[foolsguinea]

*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis *
But I don’t see any reasonable alternative. The President is constitutionally required to do whatever is in his power to protect American citizens.

Uh, no, he’s not. Really. That would be an autocratic dictatorship.

*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis *
**between protecting the theoretical rights of the accused and protecting people’s lives, I don’t think it’s a tough choice. **

I tend to agree. But of course, the accused are people too.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis *
That’s fine, but your going to have to explain to me why it’s more moral to defend the right of an accused to a speedy trial than it is to defend the lives of individuals potentially harmed by terrorist acts.

Um, “innocent until proven guilty”?

And the idea that keeping an accused person imprisoned would help protect folks who are potentially harmed implies an assumption of guilt – e.g., that if the accused was released, he would endanger the lives of the potentially harmed.

[litost]

Age Quod Agis
A very simple question. What is your objection to conducting a speedy trial and imprisoning him for xxx years if he is convicted and hence deemed a threat to American lives?

[Merijeek]

*Originally posted by litost *
**Age Quod Agis
A very simple question. What is your objection to conducting a speedy trial and imprisoning him for xxx years if he is convicted and hence deemed a threat to American lives? **

Exactly.

Apparently the Feds are saying that they have enough evidence that this guy is a terrorist (and a huge threat to the USA) that they plan to hold him indefinitely. And how long is “indefinitely”? Let me guess, once terrorism is defeated once and for all.

May as well save everyone a lot of trouble and put a bullet in him now.

And not only is this guy a hugely dangerous terrorist, but he is SO dangerous that he can’t be given a trial because he might put America in even more danger?

I can see it now…

“Please state you name for the record.”

“Ali Saleh Kahlah Al Marri. Allah Ackbar! My brothers, the secret to destroying the Great Satan is to target the small thermal exhaust port right below the main port!”

What makes him too dangerous (specifically) to give him a trial? While I sure as hell never, ever, ever would have wanted to be on the jury of a Gotti trial, I don’t recall him being refused a trial.

-Joe