FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2003, 03:01 PM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Danya
So, the question might now be if the 'war on terror' in itself enough to be considered 'wartime'. If it is than any of us can be held without due process as long as they utter the magic words, 'enemy combatant'.
Especially since the “war on terror” can be expected to open ended. In the past courts have found that it is legitimate to suspend due process in wartime. Now that we have an open-ended war, we have an indefinite suspension of due process. Since the definition of “enemy combatant” is contingent on how you define the war, anybody considered a terrorist can be called an enemy combatant. Since the court has said it has no jurisdiction the executive can consider anybody it want an enemy combatant.

On an aside, since everybody knows atheists have no morals, they must all be terrorists. Of course, papa Bush said that atheists aren’t even citizens, so I guess this whole issue doesn’t apply to us anyway.
faustuz is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 03:15 PM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Toto
[B]I glanced at the opinion. It looks like the court held that it [b]did have jurisdiction, and that American citizens have rights, but that under the circumstances, it was okay to hold this American citizen without charging him or letting him see his lawyer, based on an affidavit signed by an American official who is not subject to cross examination. You can't get much less due process than this, but the court did confine their ruling to the facts of the case. It would not justify the FBI showing up on your doorstep with an executive order declaring you an enemy combattant and taking you away. . . yet.
No, but the only reason is because the court did say that it only applies to people detained on foreign soil. So, just make sure you don’t leave the country. There is another case where the Bush administration is trying to argue that it also applies also to enemy combatants detained in this country(Padilla v. Bush). It remains to be seen how the courts will rule, but the point is that this is what the Bush administration is arguing for. Hopefully there are still enough liberals in the courts that some reason will prevail.

I take issue with something else in your post. You use the term “less due process”. What is “less due process”? It seems to me that process is either “due” or it’s not “due”. Part of due process, as established in the Constitution, is the right to consult a lawyer (is it not?) All you are saying is that there was some kind of process within the courts. I suppose I’ll concede this point. How that constitutes “due process”, however, is still beyond me.
faustuz is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 08:36 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
Default

blah, see below
pug846 is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 08:43 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I followed a link on the CNN site -

Handi v. Rumsfeld

A relatively short opinion - the list of attorneys involved takes up about a quarter of the webpage.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 08:49 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
Default

I didn’t see the last comment in your last post. It was directed to Toto, but I’d like to give my answer.

Faustuz said:

Quote:
I take issue with something else in your post. You use the term “less due process”. What is “less due process”? It seems to me that process is either “due” or it’s not “due”. Part of due process, as established in the Constitution, is the right to consult a lawyer (is it not?) All you are saying is that there was some kind of process within the courts. I suppose I’ll concede this point. How that constitutes “due process”, however, is still beyond me.
I think (?) Toto was being lazy with his language, like I was. He should have said “less process” as opposed to “less due process.” So, yes, process is either due or it’s not, but clearly different situations require differing amounts of due process. The Constitution doesn’t define what is due process, so it’s up to the courts to decide whether or not procedural due process is up to the (obviously ambiguous) Constitutional standard. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a criminal defendant has a right to see a lawyer right away. Court’s have interpretated the due process clause to say you have a right to consult an attorney right away, but the court in this case is saying the fact that the person in question is an enemy combatant and not a normal criminal requires less process than normal; more deference should be given to the government during times of war. I don’t have any problem with the proposition that an “enemy combatant” should be afforded less procedural process, but I don’t believe that the amount of process here is in fact due. The Bush team obviously feels that the affidavit is enough due process, but no where do they say no process should be afforded to the accused.
pug846 is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 09:16 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
Default I'm a moron

I probably shouldn’t have responded until I read the decision and not just what the AP said about it.

I’m having trouble following what the court actually DID say, as opposed to what I assumed they said. It seems really peculiar. The court doesn’t seem to deal with the 5th and 14th amendments (although at one point they seem to claim that the war powers vested in the President can allow him to ignore the bill of rights and later they argue that the 14th and 5th amendments don’t apply since this isn’t a criminal proceeding and he has been charged with no crime.)

The court says:

Quote:
As an American citizen, Hamdi would be entitled to the due process protections normally found in the criminal justice system, including the right to meet with counsel, if he had been charged with a crime. But as we have previously pointed out, Hamdi has not been charged with any crime. He is being held as an enemy combatant pursuant to the well-established laws and customs of war. Hamdi's citizenship rightfully entitles him to file this petition to challenge his detention, but the fact that he is a citizen does not affect the legality of his detention as an enemy combatant.
I’m not sure if this means what I had previously stated, that Hamdi is entitled to due process, but that due process would be less in his case since he is not a “normal” criminal and is an enemy combatant or that the 14th and 5th amendments just don’t apply to him at all since he hasn’t been charged with a crime. The former argument would make sense and that later would just be bizarre. The 14th and 5th amendments would apply since this is clearly a case of a government-sponsored deprivation. But in the very next paragraph, the court does seem to say that the amendments don’t apply:

Quote:
Indeed, this same issue arose in Quirin. In that case, petitioners were German agents who, after the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, were trained at a German sabotage school where they "were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing." Quirin, 317 U.S. at 21. The petitioners then journeyed by submarine to the beaches of New York and Florida, carrying large quantities of explosives and other sabotage devices. All of them were apprehended by FBI agents, who subsequently learned of their mission to destroy war industries and facilities in the United States. All of the petitioners were born in Germany but had lived in the United States at some point. One petitioner claimed American citizenship by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his youth. The Court, however, did not need to determine his citizenship because it held that the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were inapplicable in any event. It noted that "[c]itizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful." Id. at 37. The petitioner who alleged American citizenship was treated identically to the other German saboteurs.

The Quirin principle applies here. One who takes up arms against the United States in a foreign theater of war, regardless of his citizenship, may properly be designated an enemy combatant and treated as such. The privilege of citizenship entitles Hamdi to a limited judicial inquiry into his detention, but only to determine its legality under the war powers of the political branches. At least where it is undisputed that he was present in a zone of active combat operations, we are satisfied that the Constitution does not entitle him to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure there.
That doesn’t make any sense at all. There is clearly a state sponsored deprivation. Why would it matter if the deprivation was because of war or not? Granted, you would treat an “enemy combatant” differently than a “normal” American criminal, but if the enemy combatant was in fact American, the state is depriving him of his liberty and the due process clause is invoked. Again, it would make sense that the due process clause would require less process for an enemy combatant, but I don’t understand how they can claim it just doesn’t apply.

edited to add: thanks for the link Toto!

Fromtheright, do you have any problems with this decision?
pug846 is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 09:53 PM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 207
Default

It’s obvious that we’ve been getting tripped up over semantic issues. We should probably be specific and say “the due process guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments”. Then I think we can all agree that these are being denied in Hamdi’s case. Apparently, based on the snippet Pug quoted, there is judicial precedent for this. The question we should be debating is not whether due process is being denied. It obviously is (again, due process being contingent upon the definition above). The question is whether or not this is an appropriate case in which to deny due process.

During WWII we had a close ended conflict where everybody knew what the exit condition would be. We had an extremely well defined adversary. Everybody knew who the adversary was. Of course, even then there were exceptions to this: the Japanese internments being the well known case. Most people now think the Japanese internments were wrong headed, however.

We now have an open ended conflict with an ill defined enemy. The administration has chosen to call this conflict a war and is choosing to treat it as a war in the traditional sense (at least for the sake of these detentions). This, as far as I’m concerned, is a dangerous precedent. It leaves the executive extreme leeway. If the executive designates an individual as an enemy combatant, due process can be denied. A person can be held without access to a lawyer, without a right to defend themselves before a jury of their peers, without even the right to necessarily know why they are being held. Since the war may never end, they can potentially be held indefinitely. I once read a story by Franz Kafka that describes this situation, but I used to think that the Constitution of the United States protected citizens from such things.
faustuz is offline  
Old 01-10-2003, 05:37 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 1,531
Default

This case makes a mockery of constitutional law. A writ of habeas corpus should be all that is needed to free Hamdi. The whole point of such a writ is to require the government to prove that its detention of a citizen is legal. If Hamdi has not been charged with a crime, then he is being held illegally. Otherwise, the police could throw anyone in jail indefinitely without charging that person with a crime. Habeas corpus would be meaningless. Our "government of law" has suddenly transformed itself into a "government of men".

It is nonsensical to claim that there are no crimes that Hamdi could be charged with. He could be charged with treason or conspiracy to commit murder. The apparent problem with that approach is that the government doesn't have enough evidence to prove such criminal behavior. If they don't, then they have to release him. That's the whole point of a government of law. :banghead:
copernicus is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 05:58 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Default

Guess who's on Pickering's side. That's right, it's cross burner Daniel Swan, Pickering's fellow policital "victim."
Stephen Maturin is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 08:02 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Default

Quote:
Guess who's on Pickering's side. That's right, it's cross burner Daniel Swan, Pickering's fellow policital "victim."
LOL. What a heart-warming fucking tale that is!
hezekiah jones is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:48 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.