Posted by Bricker:
Well, they both have to do with abuse of power by the Executive Branch. In any case, it’s a good question. Can you answer it?
She’s one of 'em. So is Rep. Nadler. What with direct access to aides who are much more expert in procedural legalites of the US House of Representatives than am I.
Their being US Representatives and all that.
But, to be fair, I haven’t seen the defense from Rep. Sensenbrenner, or from one of the majority members of the Committee. (Hope none of them are ignorant freshmen.)
But of course, intellectual honesty dictates that we recognize the FACT that a majority of those members present walked out with the Chairman. So you see, a vote would’ve just been such a needless display of democracy and fairness. And who needs those when you have a majority?
Can we get back to this point for a moment, because I had not heard this. Am I understanding this correctly when I read that the Patriot act hearings originally did not allow testemony from the minority, and then when they had a hearing specifically for that testemony it was unilaterally shut down?
Whose position does this fact support? Had there been an explicit motion to appeal the decision of the chair, that appeal can only be accomplished with the support of a majority of the assembly… which support clearly did not exist here, as a majority of the members present supported the chair’s decision by walking out with him.
When hearings were held about the sections of the PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to sunset, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were not permitted to call their own witnesses. As a result, the Democratic members of the committee exercised their right under House Rule X to call a hearing and solicit testimony from their own witnesses.
At the “end” of that hearing, Rep. Sensenbrenner, the committee chairman, recognized himself (in violation of parliamentary procedure) and berated the witnesses about their testimony, then gaveled the hearing to a close while Democratic committee members raised legitimate points of order. He then left the committee room, and according to Democratic members, attempted to have C-Span’s microphones shut off.
The question is:
Exactly how might an innocent person mistakenly detained as an ‘enemy combatant’, so declared at the pleasure of the President, locked up indefinitely without charges and without access to counsel, go about proving his innocence?
Yes, I’ll answer it.
If you’ll tell me what it’s relevant to. “Abuse of power by the Executive Branch” is an extremely broad category. I agree it’s relevant to that. It’s relevant to “The executive branch” and I suppose it’s relevant to "The set of all questions containing exactly 35 words.’
What it’s NOT relevant to is the Patriot Ac
In a show of good faith, I’ll answer you first:
An innocent person mistakenly detained as an enemy combatant could offer evidence of his innocence to the persons detaining him. The specifics of this would necessarily depend on the specifics of the determination of his status as an enemy combatant. Without those specifics in the hypothetical, it is difficult to answer this question more specifically.
The question highlights the differences between a person accused of a crime within the boundries of the United States, who is entitled to the full panoply of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and a person captured outside the US in a combatant role, who is not entitled to be treated as an accused criminal with the attendant constitutional protections. Just as a soldier captured on the battlefield is not entitled to have his rights read to him and is not entitled to a lawyer. It’s true that a soldier, wearing the uniform of a nation with which we are at war, if captured is entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war, as per the Geneva Convention. But the Geneva Convention does not protect combatants who violate the rules of war by hiding in civilian clothes, or otherwise concealing their status as combatants. Such persons are not entitled to the protections for POWs, and are not entitled to the protections given to domestic criminals.
THAT’S MY ANSWER.
Now, let’s hear what you have to say. How is that question reasonably relevant to the legislative inquiry necessary to decide whether to renew the Patriot Act?
Actually, I normally find Bricker’s posts to be interesting and informative, unlike your contribution to this thread. I just felt that three times was a little much for the “first twenty posts” crap and felt the need to call him on it. The “intellectual honesty” bit didn’t make me feel much better.
-David, who finds these backhanded insult posts to be entirely worthless.
So then you agree with the last line of my previous post? The majority party in Congress need not even consider the opinions of the minority, regardless of rules and of good faith?
Just in case you’re actually confused by the point of this thread, it is neither that an appeal of the chair’s decision might have prevailed, nor even that a motion to adjourn (had there been one) might have been defeated. The point is that the chair’s decision to gavel the hearing without a motion to adjourn or a call to unanimous consent was not in accordance with the rules of the House. And that it was a blatant attempt to silence opposition to the majority, by preventing the airing of testimony the minority considered to be damaging to the case for extension of the sunset provisions.
Then what about the case of Jose Padilla, American citizen, who was arrested at O’Hare Airport by civilian police, then was declared an “enemy combatant” and transferred to a military prison in South Carolina? Is he not entitled to the same rights that you and I are as American citizens?
But the discussion about the relative merits of the PATRIOT Act is incidental to the object of my original post: Rep. Sensenbrenner violated the Rules of the House to end a hearing because he disagreed with what was being said. Rather than asking the witnesses to explain how their testimony related to the Act, a discussion that I would have welcomed, he chose to verbally berate them and then run from the hearing while showing a complete disregard for the procedures that govern hearings.
Would be difficult to offer evidence of one’s innocence without those specifics too, wouldn’t it?
I believe so, yes.
What about the fact that Horowitz’s newspaper ads decrying reparations for slaves were silenced when “activists” stole and destroyed newspapers containgn the ads. huh? What about that? And how about the fact that the Egyptians enslaved the Jews? And how about the fact that G. Gordon Liddy was sentenced to 20 years in prison on a first offense burglary with no personal property taken and no one harmed?
We ARE simply listing things that are injust, right? Or was there some relevance to what you mention about Padilla’s detention to the Patriot Act?
Um…
You are contending that the witnesses might have shown relevancy?
You know what, if you can show that is more than utter speculation, I will withdraw all my commentary in this thread.
How, how, how could what the witnesses were saying have anything to do with the provisions of the Patriot Act?
Sure would.
It’s terrible when a Democratic Congresswoman accuses Jews of having been warned about the 9-11 attacks and not going to work that day, too.
That factoid being about as relevant as your comment is to the subject of the committee hearings.
If Sensenbrenner hadn’t run off, there could have been a discussion about the testimony that was offered. He could have asked them how their testimony related to the PATRIOT Act, if it in fact does. Unfortunately, he chose to ignore proper procedure entirely.
And, since you obviously have the attention span of a hyperactive fruit bat, my comment about the Padilla case was a direct response to your comments about people being detained as enemy combatants and the rights they are or are not entitled to. Padilla was an American citizen arrested on American soil, and yet he is being detained as an enemy combatant, even though the statute which CREATED the “enemy combatant” designation does not allow for indefinite detention of American citizens, as Justice O’Connor stated when the Supreme Court dismissed Padilla’s original lawsuit.
And for the record, when an administration asks for renewal of statutes that grant them incredibly broad powers of wiretapping and investigation, it is useful to examine the Constitutional implications of such statutes and how the administration has dealt with past issues of due process. But of course, I’m sure that the Bush Justice Department has never ever done anything which could constitute a violation of due process, so there’s nothing to worry about, right?
Bricker, have you watched all of the relevant Committee hearings yet?
Or ANY of the relevant committee hearings?
My remark was relevant to the answer you were faking to Baldwin’s question. Baldwin’s question is relevant to the Patriot Act for the reason you’re faking ignorance of, which you’ve seen presented in this thread several times already. (Abuse of broadly granted powers ring a bell?)
And nowhere in the rules of the House have I found a requirement that testimony solicited for a public hearing by committee must be considered directly relevant by the chairman in order to be proper. I’ve looked hard for it. (Also doesn’t mention anything about Bricker’s opinion on pertinence, interestingly enough.)
Rule XI (k) (8) states “In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The
committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.”
This seems to refer to written statements specifically, but it indicates that judgement of pertinence lies with the committee as a whole rather than with the chair.
But tell you what, I’ll quit the thread now. You go on and passionately defend Pilate’s technical rectitude, and I’ll continue to believe silencing the rabbi was morally wrong. In his agony, that guy hanging by spikes through his limbs will continue to forgive both of us. (And will continue to speak, by the way.)
Posted by Bricker:
Sorry, Bricker, that’s not a very good answer.
(Your disingenuous question about the relevance of my question has already been answered, repeatedly, by others, so I’ll just deal with your statement.)
Okay, this illustrates a basic problem. The accused isn’t supposed to have to present evidence of his innocence; the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state. Slight difference.
Another basic problem. The relevant Amendments to the U.S. Constitution don’t delineate the rights of a “person accused of a crime within the boundaries of the United States”, but simply a “person”, without the qualifier. And, as has been pointed out to you, the case of Jose Padilla doesn’t even meet that standard; that is, Padilla was arrested within the U.S. This is relevant to the above statement made by you.
Please try again.
I heard someone (an intern on Sensenbrenner’s staff?) was also yelling at the Congressional recorder to stop transcribing the hearing, to the point of making threats if the typing didn’t stop right this instant.
All in all, this is a disgusting – but unfortunately not surprising – affair from one of Congress’s more odious Republican members.
An non-citizen enemy soldier, captured by US troops in a war zone, is not entitled to the protections of the Constitution. He doesn’t get a lawyer, or a trial by jury, or the freedom from being asked to incriminate himself. No, he gets none of that. That’s the way it is. Period. Even though the Constitution says “person” without the qualifier. What a shocker, eh?
Jose Padilla is, in my view, entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution; an enemy combatant is entitled to “notice of the factual basis for his classification” and a “fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision-maker.” This language, from the rulings on Hamdi, suggests that the Supreme Court agrees with this basic proposition. It also suggests that the Supreme Court is not mandating that ALL the Constitutional process available to accused criminals be available to a US citizen enemy combatant… and a US citizen CAN be an enemy combatant (see *ex parte Quirin[/i).
Nowhere in this thread, or elsewhere, have I suggested that Padilla is not entitled to some measure of Constitutional protection.
Some of the protections of the Constitution? Some measure of Constitutional protection?
Padilla is a US citizen, arrested within the United States sovereign political boundaries, by civilian police (well, at least the Bushies didn’t break the Posse Comitatus statute). He’s entitled to ALL of the protections of the Constitution.