Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bush Admin Argues For Power To...Well, Just Read On


ACW

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/24/enemy.combatant.ap/index.html

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a resident and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
I challenge ANYBODY to defend this. :finger: you Bush admin.

Courtesy theagitator.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VERY difficult case, and well beyond the scope of my knowledge; but here's how I see it.

Anyone arrested in the U.S. has the right to Constitution protections, including habeas. If you can charge them with a crime under state or federal criminal code, do so, and maintain the suspect's right to a speedy trial. If not, you probably have to let them go.

Now.

Here's where it gets sticky.

Supposing what we know about this guy is true. Let's say he goes into the Empire State Building after being released and sets off a bomb that's filled with, oh, say, cyanide. A couple hundred are killed in the blast; a thousand or so by the toxic cloud.

Do the people who say, "You can't defend the Bush administration for holding this guy" have any grounds whatsoever to complain about the government's failure to prevent the attack?

IMO, no they don't. Not at all.

I'm torn. I want our Constitution respected and abided by. But at the same time, terrorists don't fight by conventional means, making it infinitely more difficult to protect our citizens via traditional legal processes.

I guess that's why people far more intelligent than I have struggled so mightily with this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right. Make this power go away on 20 Jan 09.

In the meantime, send this scumbag to Gitmo so we don't have to hear his lawyer whine.

And people wonder why we don't hold them in the US:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article it seems they have evidence to convict him and lock him away. So why don't they?

Determining status and jurisdictions/court

On June 11, 2007, in al-Marri v. Wright, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Military Commissions Act doesn't deny al-Marri his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers.[10] The court ruled that al-Marri must be released from military detention to either be freed or to be placed in US civilian detention where the federal government would have to charge him with crimes.[11] The court held an en banc rehearing of the ruling on October 31, 2007. The decision is pending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Saleh_Kahlah_al-Marri

I'm pretty sure this threads been done before :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al Qaeda sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.

Heh, judging from the op I would have thought the bush administration had picked up a boy scout or his grandma. But you're right, how dare Bush for stoping a terrorist and keeping him off the streets so he cant kill innocent americans. WTF is he thinking? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please reread this sentence:

Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a resident and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please reread this sentence:

If the target is considered a enemy combatant

If it is a US citizen or legal resident there is civil court involvement afterwards,for others military court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge ANYBODY to defend this. :finger: you Bush admin.

Replace the word "military" with the phrase "Federal Bureau of Investigations" and I'm totally in favor of this interpretation, ACW. So far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, probably 95% (maybe a little low) of the american people don't deserve the rights granted to them in the US Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one issue i have with people saying "Military" and court.

Police are responsible for a chain of evidence etc. that allows people to get off with technicalities with prosecutors are idiots.

The military has no chain of evidence, so later if you challenge with lawyers there is no real evidence.

With this case i have no issue with this guy being in a Super-Max awaiting the charges. But, lets not have lawyers trying to MAKE the US divulge too many secrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the target is considered a enemy combatant

If it is a US citizen or legal resident there is civil court involvement afterwards,for others military court.

Really? Here's something else from the same article (albeit for a different case):

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked. "Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Here's something else from the same article (albeit for a different case):

Not sure what you're missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twa

If the target is considered a enemy combatant

If it is a US citizen or legal resident there is civil court involvement afterwards,for others military court.

Did that help?...or do I need to underline? (In which case I will need to call in Larry as a expert :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you're missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twa

If the target is considered a enemy combatant

If it is a US citizen or legal resident there is civil court involvement afterwards,for others military court.

Did that help?...or do I need to underline? (In which case I will need to call in Larry as a expert :D )

How about actually considering the fact that the two conditions you've mentioned aren't mutually exclusive?

And perhaps considering the question that maybe there ought to be a procedure for determining whether a person is, in fact, in one category or the other. And that maybe this procedure consists of more than "well, somebody, somewhere, says he is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not fully aware of what's going on in this case, but let me ask a hypothetical question.

Let's say someone is labeled an "enemy combatant" and some LEO agency (military or civilian) is charged with capturing and holding him. Lets say members of the LEO agency feel that this mission would violate someone's Constitutional rights... are they allowed to refrain from taking part from this type of raid? Or would they then be charged as "enemy combatant" also?

Something that I wonder, is that we know our military and LEO are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but what happens if you are given an order that you feel is unconstitutional? One of the things that makes me uneasy is that I've never heard of a case where a LEO refused to act because they felt what they were doing was unconstituational.... of the top of my head I think I understand why the "tin foil hat" people were all upset with the Waco and Ruby Ridge Raids, and the same thing goes for that LDS Raid in Texas recently... I wonder if anyone refused to participate in that raid because it was unconstitutional?

I guess my point is, I really don't think LEO looks out for the Constitution... even if they've sworn to uphold it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about actually considering the fact that the two conditions you've mentioned aren't mutually exclusive?

And perhaps considering the question that maybe there ought to be a procedure for determining whether a person is, in fact, in one category or the other. And that maybe this procedure consists of more than "well, somebody, somewhere, says he is."

Aren't they now(in the present)?...it was true before the SCOTUS ruling that designations and Habeaus were in flux and undefined ,but not afterwards(as far as I know) once some type of legal guidelines were established.

SCOTUS ruled citizens are entitled to civil court review and others some type of military court review after being held to determine status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, probably 95% (maybe a little low) of the american people don't deserve the rights granted to them in the US Constitution.

One of the dumbest, most disturbing posts I have read in a while. Who gets to decide who gets the rights and who doesnt? You? What if I think YOU don't deserve constitutional rights? Personally, After reading many of your posts, I consider you a likely person to flip out and attempt an assassination or some other crazy action. What if I think the government should lock you away without a trial? Would that be OK? :rolleyes:

------------------------------

By now some of you are noticing a contradiction in my position - Let me explain.

I don't agree with the legal means Bush is using. I don't have a problem with locking up a non US citizen like al-Marri who is clearly a terrorist. He does not have the same rights as a US citizen and he wants to kill us. F him. But we have to come to grips with better laws and methods of finding, capturing and keeping scum like this that do not allow some future president or administration room for abuse. There has to be a better balance between protecting US citizens rights and keeping US citizens safe. But the constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't think Bush is abusing the power but eventually someone will. In the mean time though, don't expect me to get bent out of shape about al-Marri and this case. Resident? It's a freaking student visa like the ones the 9/11 terrorists were here on.

I repeat... F al-Marri. And a big thank you to those who found and captured him. Good job guys. Keep up the good work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admitted earlier that this topic is over my head to a large degree; and I'd imagine that many of us are in the same boat.

But ACW, I'm interested in your reaction to the scenario I posted earlier. Supposing Bush lets this guy go, since there's really nothing to charge him with. Then he sets off the cyanide bomb in the Empire State Building.

Do you then come on and start a thread praising the feds for sticking to the rule of law, and consider the attack a consequence of living in a free society?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this IS a double-edged sword. I'm interested in your take on the 'other edge.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent the FBI, covertly so as not to trace back to me, evidence that MSF is a terrorist.

I have a little extra money so I sent some PI's out to do some research on his personal habits, where he hangs out and with whom. Who he calls and stuff like that. I then placed some pretty convincing evidence that links him to a terrorist organization in locations that make it appear he put them there.

I am sure the FBI will eventually figure out that he is not guilty, but it would at least keep off this site for a while.

Maybe they will send him to Gitmo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admitted earlier that this topic is over my head to a large degree; and I'd imagine that many of us are in the same boat.

But ACW, I'm interested in your reaction to the scenario I posted earlier. Supposing Bush lets this guy go, since there's really nothing to charge him with. Then he sets off the cyanide bomb in the Empire State Building.

Do you then come on and start a thread praising the feds for sticking to the rule of law, and consider the attack a consequence of living in a free society?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but this IS a double-edged sword. I'm interested in your take on the 'other edge.'

It is a double edged sword. Boot the guy out of the country and put him on every terrorist watch list. What, he is the only bad guy trying to blow something up.

Real life, unfortunately, is not easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about actually considering the fact that the two conditions you've mentioned aren't mutually exclusive?

And perhaps considering the question that maybe there ought to be a procedure for determining whether a person is, in fact, in one category or the other. And that maybe this procedure consists of more than "well, somebody, somewhere, says he is."

Actually, I believe there IS a procedure for determining whether a person is, in fact, in one category or the other. I'm sorry if you are not personally consulted on every case but I'm quite sure that experts are involved.

In this case I'm glad the details were not a matter of public record until now. As someone who was to "serve as a liaison for other al Qaeda operatives entering this country" I don't want the other terrorists to know every detail of how he was caught or what we learned. Lock him away.

The real issue is defined here:

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard University, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al Qaeda safe house in a U.S. suburb?

Sulmasy says no. That is how Congress wrote the bill, and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...