Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

SeaMasterZ@aol.com

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
1,924
BELIEVE THIS?????<br /><br />soon as some sumbiotch lights one off tho, then listen to the hue and cry in Washington ..<br /><br />edited<br /><br />Courts Rule Against Bush on 'Enemy Combatants'<br />Decision Is a Blow to Anti-Terror Policies<br />By DAVID KRAVETS, AP<br /><br />SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 19) - Two federal courts ruled that the U.S. military cannot deny prisoners access to lawyers or the American courts by detaining them indefinitely, dealing twin setbacks to the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror.<br /><br /> <br /> <br />Getty Images<br />Jose Padilla has been detained since May 2002. <br /> <br />One of Thursday's rulings favored the 660 ''enemy combatants'' held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The other involved American citizen Jose Padilla, who was seized in Chicago in an alleged plot to detonate a radioactive ''dirty bomb'' and declared as an enemy combatant.<br /><br />In Padilla's case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the former gang member released from military custody within 30 days and if the government chooses, tried in civilian courts. The White House said the government would appeal and seek a stay of the decision.<br /><br />In the other case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base should have access to lawyers and the American court system.<br /><br />The White House said the ruling was inconsistent with the president's constitutional authority as well as with other court rulings.<br /><br />''The president's most solemn obligation is protecting the American people,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday. ''We believe the 2nd Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed.''<br /><br />An order by President Bush in November 2001 allows captives to be detained as ''enemy combatants'' if they are members of al-Qaida, engaged in or aided terrorism, or harbored terrorists. The designation may also be applied if it is ''the interest of the United States'' to hold an individual during hostilities.<br /><br />The Justice Department this week said such a classification allows detainees to be held without access to lawyers until U.S. authorities believe they have disclosed everything they know about terrorist operations.<br /><br /> <br /> Talk About It <br /> <br /> <br /> · Post a Message <br /> <br />But Padilla's detention as an enemy combatant, the New York court ruled 2-1, was not authorized by Congress and Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without such approval.<br /><br />Michael Greenberger, a University of Maryland School of Law professor and former Clinton administration Justice Department official, said the government ''is being painted into a corner that is not very favorable. How bad of a corner will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.''<br /><br />The court, Greenberger said, did not address the broader question of whether constitutional rights would be violated if Bush had congressional authority to designate somebody as an enemy combatant.<br /><br />Padilla, a convert to Islam, was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport as he returned from Pakistan. Within days, he was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. The government said he had proposed the bomb plot to Abu Zubaydah, then al-Qaida's top terrorism coordinator, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002.<br /><br />In ordering his release from military custody, the court said the government was free to transfer Padilla to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges. If appropriate, Padilla also can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, the court said.<br /><br />Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, did not immediately return a telephone message for comment.<br /><br /> <br /> More on This Story <br /> <br /> <br /> · Investigators Say Officers Abused 9/11 Detainees <br /> <br /> <br />Chris Dunn, a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling ''historic.''<br /><br />''It's a repudiation of the Bush administration's attempt to close the federal courts to those accused of terrorism,'' Dunn said.<br /><br />Thursday's 2-1 decision out of San Francisco was the first federal appellate ruling to rebuke the Bush administration's position on the Guantanamo detainees who have been without charges, some for nearly two years. The administration maintains that because the 660 men confined there were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land, they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial.<br /><br />The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the detainees, who were nabbed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.<br /><br />''Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.<br /><br />Stephen Yagman, the Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of Libyan detainee Faren Cherebi, said if the decision survives, the government ''has to put up some evidence that there is a reason to hold these people and charge them, or give them up.''<br /><br />Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the government's position is that ''U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens being held in military control abroad.''<br /><br />The Defense Department announced Thursday that the Pentagon had appointed a military defense lawyer for a terrorism suspect held at Guantanamo. Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen becomes the second Guantanamo prisoner to be given a lawyer. Australian David Hicks got a lawyer earlier this month and recently met with an Australian legal adviser.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Hey Ray, it isn't Bush taking the hit, it's all of us. The whole US Gov better get together fast and figure out what needs to be done to keep these terrorists locked up or the CIA better reconstitute its hit squads and dispense a little on-the-spot justice.
 

plywoody

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
685
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

I don't know about the ones at Guantanamo--while it bothers me that they have no access to recourse of any sort--and since this war on terror is likely never to be over, I'd like to be dang sure that if these guys are getting life sentences there is a legitimate reason for it and justification for it--still they were detained on foreign soil...<br />I would sure like to see some sort of judicial review to make sure there is a good reason for holding them...<br /><br />In the case of Padilla, here is an American citizen arrested on American soil, and as near as I can tell, the government has given him a life sentence with no judicial review for "thinking bad thoughts" As near as I can tell, there is no hard evidence against this guy at all.<br /><br />If there were evidence, they would charge him and try him...<br /><br />I recall in college reading the novel "The Trial" by Franz Kafka---about a guy who was jailed without ever finding out who was arresting him and why they were arresting and holding him--it was frightening--and I would have told anyone that something like this certainly could never happen in the US of A--the idea that it could, especially in the 21st century, was simply preposterous.<br /><br />Freedom must mean something, and the idea of jailing the guy with no charges and no recourse is simply not right. If they have evidence of a crime, charge him and try him---if not, release him. This is America, and you ought to be able to think anything you want to think...
 

wvit100

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
May 6, 2002
Messages
416
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

When Russia and China jail people like this it is an outrage. When Bush does it it is for the national security.
 

Elmer Fudge

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
1,881
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

In Russia and china, loudmouths,biggots,blowhards,and anyone who says or thinks anything negative of the state is either jailed or exiled.<br />In America those sort of people can run for public office, or at least try to.<br />In Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia,Iran and most of the countries in that region They're blinded folded and shot.<br />The detainees at Guantanamo needs to be exactly where they are.<br />America is a whole lot safer because of the president's actions.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

The issue with Padilla is that in order to try him in a civilian court requires having to reveal methods and sources of intel since he has the constitutional right to confront his accusers. The Gov won't do that because it puts too many people at risk. Much of the info about Padilla came from Pakistani intel and Al Qeada. They did not randonly pick a plane and pick one passenger and arrest him. He trainned with AL Qaeda and was here to detonate a dirty nuclear weapon. <br /><br />The same holds true for Masoui. Methods and sources would have to be compromised.<br /><br />As for the Gitmo people, the vast majority, if not all, were plucked from the battlefield of Afhganastan and were not uniformed and therefore do need meet the criteria for POWs. Despite that, even the lawyer for one if the IK citizens admitted that his client told him he has been well treated and had no complaints beyond being in jail<br /><br />Now if you want to compare these people to political dissidents held in Chineese jails it says a lot about your intellectual honesty and hatred of one man. Make no mistake, if the Chineese were in our shoes, those people would have been killed where they were found.<br /><br />I do agree that a process must be set up to deal with these people. That approach is a likely a military tribunal or special court where such things can be disclosed w/o risk. The Pres thinks he has the right to make that decision and some judges think he does not. If the Pres gets a declaration of war the issue would be greatly clarified. In the mean time, in the interest of safety from cowardly murderers who target innocent civilians, they must be held.
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Plywoody, I agree that the US citizen who was arrested and held because of his suspected plans to detonate a dirty bomb has recourse to my constitution because of the constitution's wording. He is a citizen, and therefore, afforded all recourse to the law that I am.<br /><br />But the mutants in Gitmo are not covered under the constitution in any immaginable way, and are "prisoners of war" in a war that's a war. (a war against them).<br /><br />Sure, the US citizen may have come close to murdering perhaps tens, or hundreds of thousands<br />of his own countrymen, and is surely no patriot, but he was born under the American flag of freedom. It's the only difference.<br />But IMHO, they should give him a court date, release him or charge him.<br />But Iraqi and Afghan combatants are POWS,and should be held until hostilities have ceased. Then, they should be tried individually, and sentenced according to the Geniva convention.<br />END OF RANT.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

12, the difference is, that in order to prosecute him requires intellegence sources being exposed due to his right to confront his accussers. That is why a special court needs to be set up to deal with these situations. People in this category get designated as enemy combatants and go through the special courts. If the Gov had grabbed him anywhere but US soil there would not have been a problem but he was grabbed at O'Hare which is why there is even an issue. They should have caused the plane to land in a foreign country and grabbed him there.<br /><br />Also, the Gitmo people are not POWs. They were not wearing uniforms, etc.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

The courts are doing their job, which is to check the power of the Executive branch. Remember the Republic in which we live - the President has no power not conferred upon him by the constitution. The supreme court gets to settle arguments on what's in the constitution. Bush will appeal and the deal will get done one way or another. I'd be disappointed in him if he didn't press the matter to the very end.<br /><br />So Padilla isn't an "enemy combatant." That ain't the worst thing in the world. It just means that the "jack-booted thugs" (remember that term from Waco?) can't haul you in & hold you forever for nothing. If there's enough evidence to convict the guy he'll go down otherwise he'll walk - that's just part of the price you pay for "justice and liberty for all." Nobody said it was fair.<br /><br />I think Elmer's right - any comparison between the USA and communist regimes fails upon closer inspection. It's my understanding that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are being treated well & that's good enough for me, as long as they sort 'em out quickly as possible so the innocent can go back to their families. There's bound to be one or two not guilty in the group. It would really hack me off big time to find out our government was imprisoning people without pursuing justice.<br /><br />I'm not a Bush-basher, but I remember when he was just the guy who traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Bains. What was the justification for war again? Weapons of mass destruction? Surely it wasn't to ensure a good supply of fuel for our H2's. One thing we know for sure, Chaney's cronies over at Halliburton are "reaping the spoils."<br /><br />jtw
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

OK people, please, take a breath and read this:<br /><br />The problem with trying people like him is he gets the right to confront his accussers. That is, CIA and other intellegence agents and people who have infultrated Al Qaeda. The Gov can't do that w/o getting people killed<br /><br />Bush wants to prosecute them in special courts and the Judiciary says he can't because there is no declaration of war. That is the issue.
 

jtexas

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
8,646
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Hey Colonel Spencer, I think we were all typing at the same time. IMHO you've done an excellent job clarifying the issue and distinguishing Padilla. And I mean that with complete sincerity. Sounds like his status is completely unique - I guess we just have to trust our leaders to find a way to resolve the issue?<br /><br />thanks,<br />jtw
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Thanks. That is why this is all such a tricky issue. The political climate is such that the Admin might find it tough to get a delcartion of war right now - it would just be politicised to all heck. He is trying to claim he has the right, w/o the delcartion, to designate people through executive order. He will not likely prevail and have to go for the formal declaration.<br /><br />The bird is the Formula logo... No Col here :D
 

12Footer

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
8,217
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

He's an admiral anyhow. :) <br /><br />I realise the need to keep him from his chosen path, and the American military's obligations. But I'm only saying we can't circumvent the constitution to do that. The CIA surely had enough evidence to sweep, and lock him up. They now must act on it, try him in a civalian court, or charge him with treason. By doing so, we can hold him on a technicaility for the duration of the hostilities.<br />I must admit to being brain-dead on all legal issues such as this. But the constitution is what it is. Surely, it's not the first or last assault on it. I just see it differently than many Americans do. They (and not naming any names here at all), see it as a guidline only---a "fluid document that is outdated in it's language".<br />I see it as "America's bible". <br />Convoluting it for the sake of fairness, modernization, convienence, or literally any other reason borders on the sacrilegious in my own opinion.<br />The first "Ammendment" was a mistake, because it opened the flood-gates to future ammendments, each with it's own champions and victums.<br />It's allmost beyond salvation, with as many "ammendments" it has undergone. But it's all we have, that seperates us from anarchy.<br />I didn't mean to go so far off-topic there. But anyhoo,<br /><br />There are ways to hold him, and still be within the bounds of his constituional rights. And I'm sure this mutant will not see natural sunlight again. If he does, he won't get a block away from the holding facility without assuming room temperature.<br />I have no doubt that these contingencies have been planned for tho. The CIA is the CIA.<br /><br />The POW's are POW's who are not entitled to the constitution in any way, shape, or form. They are trying to destroy us, and would have us wipe with the constitution. It's the military's responsability to keep us from harm's way by icing these animals down. They don't desreve to breathe air, IMHO, but we are Americans and we don't discard the rules for humanity like some countries are willing to do.<br />Iraq has it's dungeons and torture chambers --- and in more countries than I can count, this would not raise any eyebrows. it's how they live. It aint us, man.We are human.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

I realise the need to keep him from his chosen path, and the American military's obligations. But I'm only saying we can't circumvent the constitution to do that. The CIA surely had enough evidence to sweep, and lock him up. They now must act on it, try him in a civalian court, or charge him with treason. By doing so, we can hold him on a technicaility for the duration of the hostilities.
In order to put him on trial they would have to produce classified evidence in court which would put Intellegence officers lives at risk. That is why the Amin was trying to put him on trial in a military court rather than a civilian court. In the military court, the evidence could be kept secret.
 

boatingfool

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
610
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Originaly posted by plywoody:<br /><br />
In the case of Padilla, here is an American citizen arrested on American soil, and as near as I can tell, the government has given him a life sentence with no judicial review for "thinking bad thoughts" As near as I can tell, there is no hard evidence against this guy at all.<br />
Poor misguided plywoody.<br /><br />Boy am I glad people like you are not in power!!!!
 

SeaMasterZ@aol.com

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
1,924
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

as much as admire plywoodies guts for taking a contrarian stand on damm near everything a "right thinking" mind would condone, I think that he sufferes from that liberal loss of vision in regard to the BIG picture<br /><br />russia, (well, old russia) china, etc, doesnt have ragheaded nutjobs running around trying to light off a radiological bomb, yanno, as horrific as a NUCLEAR DETONATION would be, the differential damage would be the first 90 seconds, after that, what is done is done in regard to blast damage and the like, but see the BIG problem is the radiation sickness<br /><br />yeah, those scumhole ragheads wont have a nice big mushroom cloud to jump up and down in their hovels over, but theyll have a lot of DYING AMERICANS to hoot and holler about<br /><br />before you say, well, cant compare the two bombs, radiological is limited to a small area, dispersal ratios are completely different, I say BULLCHIT, there is NO REASON for ANYONE to have depleted uranium or any other dammed radioactive material. <br /><br />you get caught with it, you get EXECUTED<br /><br />on the spot<br /><br />BANG<br /><br />it aint like getting caught with a machine gun, <br />radioactive is clear intent to cause CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE,<br /><br />got nuke stuff?<br /><br />broadsword RIGHT DOWN THE RAGS, try to part the son of a biotches belly button by way of his stinking greaseball rag wrapped head<br /><br />by the way, I am completely unbiased about this, I dont care if you are white black green or purple, nordic blonde wearing a viking hat, got nuke stuff?<br /><br /> HACK <br /><br />and post the remains so the other sons of biotches see how FUN it is to be a martyr, torture the basstards to DEATH on national TV, televise it all over the world if they could figure it out<br /><br />but no, lets be nice, be peaceful, cant deprive anyone thier RIGHTS yanno, its their RIGHT to do as they damm well please to us, THEIR RIGHT TO F**KING MURDER US IN COLD BLOOD, THEIR RIGHT TO TRY SET SOMETHING UP TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN <br /> <br />AND AGAIN GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR<br /><br /> :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: <br /><br />gonna just let it happen?<br /><br /> or support someone with guts enough to STOP THE BASSTARDS???
 

mellowyellow

Vice Admiral
Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
5,327
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

a big part of the problem IMO here is that we<br />have declared war on terrorism, not a specific<br />country or regime. there is NO legal precedent<br />here for the courts to follow. we will likely<br />need to pass new laws regarding this situation.<br />the local "sleeper cell" (lakawana 7), were tried<br />and convicted in federal court here. they all<br />plead guilty and were actually turned in by the<br />local members of the muslim community so this was<br />an easy case for the feds.
 

plywoody

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
685
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Yep, I guess in your world, the constitution is just something we follow when it is convenient, and fits what we want to do anyway. Otherwise,, we can just ignore it.
 

SCO

Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 19, 2001
Messages
1,463
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Good points Castaway, congrats again for another well conveyed point of view...and I'm not being sarcastic. I think we all respect and understand the need for due process, but as Ray says, anyone caught with a dirtybomb or plans to set one off deserves the broadsword. We have to take some time and scratch our heads on this one and Modify some procedure to accommodate both requirements like Ralph alluded to. Sometimes a poor innocent wretch might get a bum deal, but soldiers are dying, thats a bum deal. That wretch can wait till we sort out the problem. Cant let someone go that the military thinks was involved in a plot to kill thousands.
 

boatingfool

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
610
Re: Bush takes another hit in the War Against Terrorism

Yep, I guess in your world, the constitution is just something we follow when it is convenient, and fits what we want to do anyway. Otherwise,, we can just ignore it
Ah plywoody,<br />You poor misguided soul.
 
Top