Topic: dirty bomber
started by: veistran
Posted by veistran on Jun. 12 2002,09:54
and there's a yellowtimes article linked on fark and the < comments > on fark about it are really good. Especially the stuff by peter_hook cathaholic corn-bread and a few others.now personally, I'm thinking they're going to just sit on him for as long as they can to use the same assets that they used to catch him, before giving him his day in civil court.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 13 2002,13:50
No civil court for this Fucknugget"enemy combatant"
Your a pow buddy and can be tried as an enemy spy.
Ill buy the rope!
Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,14:45
They need to do to this guy what they did to the eight german saboteurs in 1942.What's even better, there's a sixty year old Supreme Court precedent for handling this guy in a tribunal rather than a civilian court.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 13 2002,14:51
yepand he is in a military brig right now
Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,15:00
Which is exactly where he belongs.The guy's a combatant for a foreign military. He's also in violation of the Geneva Convention because he wasn't in uniform when carrying out his duties as a combatant.
Civilian court is not equipped to deal with matters of law regarding war. Tribunals are. That's why they exist.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 13 2002,18:17
I would like nothing better than him to get the tribunal but I don't think it'll happen, but that's just me.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 17 2002,15:26
< http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/06/17/tomo/index.html >
Posted by editor on Jun. 17 2002,19:55
Mr Bozeman; did you mean;...
I love Tom Tomorrow but ask CK about this... uh oh.
Posted by editor on Jun. 17 2002,20:00
I agree that if the guy's a foreign operator, *shikkk* but without due process, how can we be sure?That's what scares me...
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 17 2002,20:48
You do realize that we are not in a declared state of war? So I am going to state my opinion that since we are not in a state of war the supreme court rules about enemy combatants do not apply because congress has not declared war. One might ask who we would declare war on? I would say al-qeada, would it be that hard for congress to make a document declaring that? If they did this the constitutional issues of enemy status would be irrelevant. I am a sticker for law, and until we declare war I am not going to support increasing the federal governments powers to hold people.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 17 2002,21:35
Thanks, editor, you not only stated my point for me (which helps because I'm a horrible typist) you also posted teh pic I linked to, which I don't know how to do yet.Ic0n0: Welcome back, and good point.
Posted by editor on Jun. 17 2002,21:50
d00d; go to reply;hit Image, hit delete, CnP the URL and hit enter.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 18 2002,14:41
Declared state of war or not, serving in a 'foreign military' engaged in acts of war against the US (something Padilla has not denied, AFAIK) is considered under US code a renouncement of citizenship.Once his acts renounce his citizenship, he's no longer entitled to the protections under the Constitution that are reserved for citizens.
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 20 2002,01:51
| Quote (kuru @ 18 June 2002,08:41) |
| Declared state of war or not, serving in a 'foreign military' engaged in acts of war against the US (something Padilla has not denied, AFAIK) is considered under US code a renouncement of citizenship. Once his acts renounce his citizenship, he's no longer entitled to the protections under the Constitution that are reserved for citizens. |
In a similar vein, such acts may be found to violate the "Clear and Probable Danger" test, thus giving the government not only the right, but the responsibility to act immediately.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,05:14
Two Pointsone - even if you assume ex parte quirin is a justification for what's goin on (which it's not, see below) there are some major problems here that I think violate the intent of the constitution pretty dramatically. The accusing party (the military) is also the trying party and does so under the rules that they devise! Not quite the separation of powers and checks & balances we normally like to see when accusing innocent people who remain innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore the accusing and trying parties (as well as those who make the rules) all answer to the president. He has the power to order people to accuse someone, order some other people to find them guilty, and then order the person executed. The constitution was written with a strong distrust of government, and this is power vested in one person that requires a great deal of trust. Personally I'm not going to trust every president will use this power appropriately, should it not be overturned. Furthermore, why on Earth would you ever need a military tribunal for anyone except when you had to try a huge number of people and the process would be administratively impossible otherwise. Military tribunals essentially make it far easier to find someone guilty, and far easier to exact a more devastating punishment (essnetially limiting their rights to a significant degree). If this is okay, then why don't we change the judicial system?
two - on ex parte quirin. This doesn't justify trying US citizens in a military tribunal at all. Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled it was acceptable based on international law at the time. Since then (1949 to be exact) the definition of "time of war" has been changed and is recognized to only exist between nation states. By international law we are not in a time of war, and therefore couldn't try anybody as an "enemy combatent". Furthermore, the ruling clearly stated that it applied only to enemy aliens, which means you can't send a US citizen to a military tribunal even in a time of war.
My humble 2c.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,06:04
Someone needs to give Pravus Angelus an "A" for all the homework he's doing.Where do you find all this stuff?
Posted by veistran on Jun. 27 2002,08:28
I'd guess findlaw
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,18:46
some snippets from < ex parte quirin >| Quote |
| The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war. |
note, president has powers regarding war that congress has declared
| Quote |
| An important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our military effort have violated the law [317 U.S. 1, 29] of war. |
| Quote |
| Modern warfare is directed at the destruction of enemy war supplies and the implements of their production and transportation quite as much as at the armed forces. Every consideration which makes the unlawful belligerent punishable is equally applicable whether his objective is the one or the other. The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces |
| Quote |
| All these are instances of offenses committed against the United States, for which a penalty is imposed, but they are not deemed to be within Article III, 2 or the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments relating to 'crimes' and 'criminal prosecutions'. In the light of this long-continued and consistent interpretation we must concluded that 2 of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be taken to have extended the right to demand a jury to trials by military commission, or to have required that offenses against the law of war not triable by jury at common law be tried only in the civil courts |
note: the important part here is that to be tried by a military tribunal you must be targeting the armed forces or some part of the war industry. These are not 'crimes' per se, but instead are offsense against a nation in a state of war and this is the justification for removing the case from typical courts. However, padilla was targetting civilians, which would make his actions crimes and not offsenses against the armed forces of the united states, and therefore his case falls under the jurisdiction of the courts and not military tribunals.
| Quote |
| Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war |
notes: this is the part of ex parte quirin where people say 'look he's an enemy combatent', but note the very specific wording..military arm of the enemy government, which the al queda (nor any other terrorist group) is not legally classified as. As such, he has not renounced his citizenship.
and yes, findlaw is your friend
Posted by veistran on Jun. 28 2002,00:05
findlaw and stratfor