Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: Grim Logic

"When he wants to interrogate a combatant in viola...

2007-08-17T23:01:00.000-05:00

"When he wants to interrogate a combatant in violation of the laws of war, the president insists the detainee is a criminal."

The interrogation of a combatant is in violation of the laws of war only if that combatant meets the requirements of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. If he does not meet those requirements, he is not entitled to the protections afforded such prisoners. However, it is simply false to say that anyone can be labelled an enemy combatant by the president, at which point he loses all rights of any kind. Under existing law he is entitled to appear before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal in order that that tribunal can adjudicate his status. His rights before the tribunal are certainly less than those of a US criminal defendant, but there is no law anywhere that says he is entitled to such rights.

I'm sorry that this thread is (apparently) stone cold. I'd be interested to hear some responses to the following hypothetical: Suppose an American citizen had gone abroad in 1942 and joined the German Army. Suppose he had been taken alive later that year during operation torch in Morocco. What rights did he have? Only those of a POW, assuming he met the Article 4 requirements. He could have been held, without the right to counsel or a hearing of any kind, for the duration of the war. If he had not been in uniform, and had not been behaving in accordance with the usual customs of war, should his rights be greater than those of a POW? Lesser? Explain your answers.

I am quite surprised by the outrage expressed in t...

2007-08-17T20:54:00.000-05:00

I am quite surprised by the outrage expressed in the initial post. AL seems to think that, during the period of Padilla's detention as an enemy combatant, the government was seeking to prosecute him under the criminal law, and that therefore he was entitled to the process guaranteed a criminal defendant. That is simply not the case. He was being treated as a terrorist who likely had information concerning other terrorists and planned terrorist acts. The purpose of his detention was not criminal punishment, but the prevention of acts of terror and the gathering of intelligence about them. It is for this very reason that, in his recent criminal trial, no "dirty-bomb" charges were made, because the proof of those charges would have been inadmissible. He was charged, and found guilty, only of those crimes that could be proved withour recourse to information obtained by means that would be unlawful in any criminal case.

As for Plainbrown1, he or she is simply misinformed about the laws that currently govern those detained as enemy combatants. They are, indeed, entitled to more due process than is required either by the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution. Whether those procedures would have been deemed sufficient for a US citizen taken on US soil has not been determined, and it was a matter the administration elected not to litigate, inasmuch as it was confident of a conviction and life sentence in any event.

Being a US citizen certainly does carry with it certain rights of process in a criminal proceeding. However, any American who assumes that such rights will continue to attach even if he goes abroad voluntarily to join an extra-national terrorist organization that has vowed jihad against this country is assuming too much, regardless of who is president. Anyone who thinks John Walker Lind would have been treated differently if Bill (or Hillary) Clinton had been president is delusional. Recall, for example, that "renderings" and black ops of various kinds were carried out under Clinton, as well they should have been.

Casual Observer, I am not aware that any of the candidates in either party have been asked these questions--the questions tend to focus on $400 haircuts and such matters. But if you are looking for a candidate who will guarantee to foreign unlawful combatants full US constitutional rights, you will look in vain, unless you're down with, say, Dennis Kucinich. Any candidate in either party who stakes out such a position will be defeated on that ground alone. But it's a moot point, because none of them will. Just watch.

Have any of the Democratic candidates ever been as...

2007-08-15T07:23:00.000-05:00

Have any of the Democratic candidates ever been asked what they will do to change DOJ policies in this regard? Will they restore Habeas? Will they shut down black-op sites? Will they shut down torture? Will they finally restore process to the Gitmo detainees?

Your expose of government "logic" is impeccable, e...

2007-08-15T07:07:00.000-05:00

Your expose of government "logic" is impeccable, especially the analogy to Dahmer.

Incarceration without process, trial or defense.En...

2007-08-14T23:51:00.000-05:00

Incarceration without process, trial or defense.
Enhanced interrogation methods
warrantless wiretaps, e-mail intercepts and cell phone monitoring.
Military occupation under force of arms.
Tens of thousands oc civilians killed.
Government promoted that supports the occupiers.
Weapons of mass destruction - delivered in shock and awe.
No electicity, water or sewage services.
Schools effectively shut down.
Unemployment for political opponents.
Armed militias supported by government agencies.

Now tell me again... what was the benefit of overthrowing the dictator?

Padilla is just an ice cube from the berg...

Some who now develop and argue the federal governm...

2007-08-14T23:18:00.000-05:00

Some who now develop and argue the federal government's legal positions seem to believe that not allowing constitutional rights of the accused, especially the right to legal counsel and represesentation, advances the discovery of truth. The framers believed the opposite.

Zeus deeply regrets having been out of the country...

2007-08-14T21:03:00.000-05:00

Zeus deeply regrets having been out of the country (in sunny Italy) when Judge Bates put paid to the Wilson-Plame nonsense. I only just returned to discover the wonderful news, and regret that I must do my gloating quite belatedly. Nevertheless, however late I am extremely pleased to do so now.

Less than a week after the lawsuit was filed, I sent poor Prof. Chermerinsky an e-mail asking him if he was at all concerned about the Federal Tort Claims Act, or if indeed he had ever heard of it (he has certainly heard of it now). He didn't respond.

Well done, Judge Bates! Carry on, sir!

Goodness, I don't think "grim" is a stong enough a...

2007-08-14T19:04:00.000-05:00

Goodness, I don't think "grim" is a stong enough adjective. I don't what disturbs me more: the fact that an Administration advocate could make that argument to a judge with a straight face, or that the judge didn't read the guy the proverbial Riot Act, much less grant the request.

No, on second thought, it's the judge that disturbs me more. Orwell was off a few decades. We're not there yet, but we're definitely headed in that direction.