A simple question for amicus

[Pure]

(and for the neo conservatives)

Is lengthy detention--ordered by the President and/or Sec'y of Defense--of an America citizen without charges or trial consistent with the Bill of Rights?

ami has occasionally provided 'smoke' and bafflegab on this topic, apparently in defense of mr bush,

but i thought i'd pose a simple question and see if anything comprehensible turns up, of if he speechifies or turns tail, as usual.

 

[elsol]

It's actually a violation of the Bill of Rights... but I'm a moderate so who gives a shit about my opinion.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[TheEarl]

This is currently being debated in England about the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Blair wants 60 days without charges. His opponents want less, or none at all. So far, the opponents are thoroughly winning, although that could just be because no-one likes Blair anymore and will take any opportunity to make him look silly.

Personally, I'm in favour of the 60 days, but only if there is verifiable cause for holding the person in relation to terrorism. It shouldn't have the same burden of proof as for an arrest, but there should still be rules to prevent abuse of this power.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

come on, el, we luv ya!



----
note to liar[correction--TheEarl]; the most well known US case is over two years of detention in a military brig (Padilla)--recently transferred to civilan facility and court process as his case was in process of being brought before the Supreme Court.

 

[elsol]

This is currently being debated in England about the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Blair wants 60 days without charges. His opponents want less, or none at all. So far, the opponents are thoroughly winning, although that could just be because no-one likes Blair anymore and will take any opportunity to make him look silly.

Personally, I'm in favour of the 60 days, but only if there is verifiable cause for holding the person in relation to terrorism. It shouldn't have the same burden of proof as for an arrest, but there should still be rules to prevent abuse of this power.

The Earl

Verifiable cause... it'll take two years in which the individual sits in jail for the lawyers to hash out what is verifiable cause and what is not.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Quiet_Cool]

It's actually a violation of the Bill of Rights... but I'm a moderate so who gives a shit about my opinion.


Sincerely,
ElSol

I'm with you, elsol. People like us... *shakes head sadly* We're just not good enough at pissing in everyone's Cheerio's and pretending we've made a point by doing it.

Q_C

 

[elsol]

I'm with you, elsol. People like us... *shakes head sadly* We're just not good enough at pissing in everyone's Cheerio's and pretending we've made a point by doing it.

Q_C

I wonder if either sides remembers the thing about the 'quiet ones'...

At some point, both sides are going to drive the middle crazy and we're to do something just to spite them.

--I haven't figured out what that thing is, being extreme is sort of contra the whole moderate thing... *sigh*

I think the most frustrating thing we can do is keep switching sides every 10->20 years.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Pure]

but el sol, i find you take moderation to an extreme

 

[TheEarl]

Politically, I am a radical liberal, that is my position. I would be a liberal, but the image of a liberal is sort of – because left and right have been in power for a long time in Britain, the image of a liberal is one of, “Oh… I’m not sure, and you’re…? Oh, really? And you…? Oh, really? I’m on the fence here…”

“Revolutionary liberal!” That sounds better to me, I think. Storm the House of Parliament, kick the fucking doors in, get in there and say, “Look, we’ll pay for the damage.” Have a revolution, just budget for it, yeah?

The Earl

 

[amicus]

(and for the neo conservatives)

Is lengthy detention--ordered by the President and/or Sec'y of Defense--of an America citizen without charges or trial consistent with the Bill of Rights?

ami has occasionally provided 'smoke' and bafflegab on this topic, apparently in defense of mr bush,

but i thought i'd pose a simple question and see if anything comprehensible turns up, of if he speechifies or turns tail, as usual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 'simple question' is not really a question at all. "...Is lengthy detention--ordered by the President and/or Sec'y of Defense--of an America citizen without charges or trial consistent with the Bill of Rights?..."

As Pure and everyone else knows, 'Habeus Corpus' "Law, a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, especially for investigation of a restraint of a person's liberty, used as a protection against illegal imprisonment." (Random House Unabridged)

United States citizens have this right and many other protections in the bill of rights to guard them against the excesses of government and police power.

All of those rights and liberties have been violated at one time or another, for various reasons. And many aspects of each right and liberty have been questioned and challenged in the courts.

The United States has a long history of ever increasing the protections of life, liberty and property against intrusion by government and law enforcement agencies.

But we all know that, rather self evident. So what really is the question, Pure?

I am sure you have heard of such things as 'Marital Law', or even emergency situations where citizens are forced to evacuate their homes, or have them searched by right of 'probable cause'. In these circumstances, some regular liberties and freedoms are violated, usually, but not always for just cause.

There is also the small matter that the United States is at war. And you cannot use your anti war stance to ignore that fact, like the war or not.

There is also the other small matter, that we have been attacked on our home soil and elsewhere, in naval vessels and embassies in several places.

The United States does have the right to use unusual methods to protect the sovreignty of the nation and the safety of its citizens, wherever they are in the world.

Has the President exceed his power by ordering foreign prisoners to be held without those rights usually accorded a citizen? The courts say he has not, most Americans beleive he has not (see recent polls) most Republicans and even the dreaded Democrats agree he has not.

Only the radical liberal left is pressing the point that he has exceed his power.

Has the military exceeded its legal and authorized power in interrogating prisoners of the insurgents or terrorists? The courts say no, they have not. Most rational people understand and agree that the military in general, has not exceeded its authority and where examples are questioned, justice is meted out to those who do.

Pure and others like him, ideologically driven to criticize every aspect of this administration and the war effor, will stoop to any level to try to embarrass and impede the political and military process of prosecuting this war.

That's why there are two parties with differing viewpoints. One is in the majority, one is in the minority and whining, as minorities do, wailing indeed in pathos.

So be it.


amicus...

 

[elsol]

Amicus, Obviously you need a Pure to normal speech translation

Does the President of the United States presently have the power to order the detention of an AMERICAN CITIZEN for an indefinite amount of timewithout charging the individual?

This means if the President tommorrow gets a hair up his ass and says... I think "Amicus, is actually a front for some mullah in the midwest... someone go get him and stick him in a hole until we're done with my holy campaign."

Can he legally do so?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Well, as I already answered, it is legal for the executive, under laws already passed and congressional approval to tap my phones if I am talking to a known terrorist overseas.

Yes, legal. Is that plain enough for you or do you need braille also?

amicus....

 

[elsol]

Well, as I already answered, it is legal for the executive, under laws already passed and congressional approval to tap my phones if I am talking to a known terrorist overseas.

Yes, legal. Is that plain enough for you or do you need braille also?

amicus....

No... we're not talking about tapping your phones.

We're talking about walking into your house, putting you in cuffs, and putting you in a cell without presenting charges or trial, and hold you for indefinite amount of time.

Interrment on suspicion with no paperwork being filed and no chance for you to prove that you're not Abdullah Ad Amicus.

Does the President have a right to stuff into a hole until the end of the 'war on terrorism'?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[chris 44]

[/I]

I am sure you have heard of such things as 'Marital Law', or even emergency situations where citizens are forced to evacuate their homes, or have them searched by right of 'probable cause'. In these circumstances, some regular liberties and freedoms are violated, usually, but not always for just cause.

amicus...

Does that mean I can have my wife sent to Guantanamo if she doesn't do what I say?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

(and for the neo conservatives)

Is lengthy detention--ordered by the President and/or Sec'y of Defense--of an America citizen without charges or trial consistent with the Bill of Rights?

I'm not a Neo Con, but I've been accused of being one on this board before, so I'll throw in my two cents worth.

No, it's not legal. American citizens have certain inalienable rights, and this is a violation of those rights. If you can't come up with a charge, then they shouldn't be held.

I do not think that non Americans have these same rights under our judicial system. Not being an American citizen is a whole different set of circumstances.

The real pisser to me is that they can hold someone indefinitely with no charges, but if some scum bag rapes a 13 year old girl, he can be out in 60 days.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Pure is most likely adressing the situation with Padilla. Or some similar case I don't know by name.

Amicus would claim war powers, which do allow significant restriction on individual rights. The problem with that line is that this country isn't at war. Much as Bush wants to think he can dclare a war on terror, even FDR had to go to congress to get a declatation of war after Pearl harbor.

Contsituionally protected rights should hold precedence over executive directives. To say any less, imples a president may declare an emergency and brogate any right's he chooses. that is clearly not supporte by the Consitition.

 

[Guest]

Does that mean I can have my wife sent to Guantanamo if she doesn't do what I say?

I avoided this thread but - oh my!

My side hurts -

 

[amicus]

Colleen...I have listened to hours of debate on this issue, on CSPAN, on Charilie Rose interviews, on Government statements and news interviews.

My understanding from all of that is that the Congress approved the use of force in Iraq and gave the Executive Branch the requested authority and permission to use surveillance techniques on 'known' terrorists using electronic means of communications from outside the US.

There have been several different legal opionions expressed, in and out of government which have stated and affirmed that the President and the NSA are acting legally.

This is just another left wing political ploy to attempt to embarrass and demean the Bush Administration, it basically has nothing to do with the war powers act.

amicus...

 

[Purple Sage]

There is also the small matter that the United States is at war. And you cannot use your anti war stance to ignore that fact, like the war or not.

amicus...

Hmmm. The United States isn't actually at war. Even if one were to go so far as to regard the rather weasely Congressional authorization for the use of force against Saddam as a formal declaration of war, the Saddam regime no longer exists, it's head and many of it's lesser functionaries are in custody, it has no government structure, and, of course "Mission Accomplished". Even if we allow that we can be in a legitimate state of war without actually declaring it, there's a sensible requirement that that war is over when the enemy of record is defeated.

The alternative seems to be to believe that once Congress declares war, it is a carte blanche for the executive branch to make war on whoever it chooses, for as long as it chooses, changing targets at will. I find it hard to accept that this is the intent of the Framers.

Of course, it's possible that by 'at war' you are referring to the 'War on Terror'. This 'war', however, has no legal standing, any more than the 'War on Poverty' placed extraodinary powers in the executive branch. It is merely a figure of speech, not a formal declaration under the War Powers provisions of the Consititution. There's no reason to believe that any precedents set in the restrictions of liberties during war time have any bearing whatsoever in the case of 'authorizing the use of force'.

 

[Pure]

i thought it was a simple question,

but ami seems the think it is not a question or amounted to "Is America the land of the free and home of the brave?"

at other points, ami seems to confuse surveillance without a judge's authorization with detention w/o charges. the latter being the thread topic. it is further specified that US citizens are involved. Yes Colly, the Padilla case is one example, since he was held two years in a naval brig in the US (not Guantanamo) w/o charges, or, in the first several months without access to a lawyer.

IN simple terms, rephrasing slightly, can the pres say/write, "I declare that man [US citizen] to be an 'enemy combatant' and as such, a menace to national security. Pick him up [in the US] and hold him till further notice [in the US] without laying charges or bringing matters in front of a judge." This document then being counted as sufficient evidence and being sufficient 'cause' to legally justify the action.

Here are a couple relevant pieces of legislation. Incidentally the first is said by GWB to authorize warrantless surveillance.
-------

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq [Oct 2002]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

-------
War Powers Act 1973

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

====
some of the facts of the Padilla case can be found at the following (among hundreds of other sites, e.g., the Washington Post, NY Times, etc.)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1730/

 

[elsol]

Pure come on...

Amicus's answer is yes... the President can point at someone (as long their part of the miscolored element) and say 'suspected terrorist' thus making it possible for the FBI to lock that individual in a cell for years without bringing forward charges or putting them on trial.

It's fucking awesome... i can't wait to see what a Democratic President does with the power.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Selena_Kitt]

"Is America the land of the free and home of the brave?"

It never was. It was always an illusion.

There are amazingly SCARY things the government can do to you, that you don't realize until you end up there, or someone you know does...

we lived in "1984" long before the year hit, or Orwell put pen to paper...

 

[Sex and Death]

Colleen...I have listened to hours of debate on this issue, on CSPAN, on Charilie Rose interviews, on Government statements and news interviews.

My understanding from all of that is that the Congress approved the use of force in Iraq and gave the Executive Branch the requested authority and permission to use surveillance techniques on 'known' terrorists using electronic means of communications from outside the US.

There have been several different legal opionions expressed, in and out of government which have stated and affirmed that the President and the NSA are acting legally.

This is just another left wing political ploy to attempt to embarrass and demean the Bush Administration, it basically has nothing to do with the war powers act.

amicus...

Amicus,

I am losing respect for your unyielding spine. I understand many of your arguments, even if I don't agree, but to say that the Bush Administration needs help from anyone to embarrass and demean them, well, you fail to give them the credit they deserve.

The right thing can be done by the wrong perosn and it becomes the wrong thing. This defines the Bush Administration. The person cannot be divorced from his or her role. His intention is deeply untrustable, which makes his actions faulty. When I reflect on the question of who Bush and his adminsitration serve I never come up with an answer that helps me understand why he has been given the responsibility of his office, except that it speaks to the deficient psychological, social and moral development of our American culture as a whole. water seeks its own level, which is one of the greatest dangers and challenges of our political system and chosen cultural path.

Whether he has made good decisions or bad decisions, whether his decisions are legal or not, he is a selfish adolescent at heart and is incapable of true leadership. He serves nothing greater than himself.

Yes, I am attacking his character...and, yes, it is hitting below the belt, which is where his character lies.

S&D

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen...I have listened to hours of debate on this issue, on CSPAN, on Charilie Rose interviews, on Government statements and news interviews.

My understanding from all of that is that the Congress approved the use of force in Iraq and gave the Executive Branch the requested authority and permission to use surveillance techniques on 'known' terrorists using electronic means of communications from outside the US.

There have been several different legal opionions expressed, in and out of government which have stated and affirmed that the President and the NSA are acting legally.

This is just another left wing political ploy to attempt to embarrass and demean the Bush Administration, it basically has nothing to do with the war powers act.

amicus...

Approving the use of force is not a declaration of war. The president may, on his own inititive, order troops be deployed anywhere. As long as the deployment lasts less than (I think it's still 90 days) he need not ask congress. If a bloody leftest rebellion occured in say, Panama, Bush could order in as much force as he deemed neccessary to protect american citizes or to ensure the sfaety of the Canal, which is a strategic asset. He would not need to ask congress's permission, but if the insurrection lastedmore than 90 days, he would have to get congressional approval to keep troops stationed there for the duration.

Rather than deploy, then get permission, the white house sough and was granted permission befre deployment in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressional approval to deploy troops, however, does not equate to sa state of war. The president may not use congression approval to deploy troops in country X, as a pretext for invoking war powers.

Dubya's administration is challengeing that. In fact, he is challenging just about every stricture upon presidential power. That's not neccissarily an awful thing. It will allow the courts, to place more concrete interpretations of of powers that have been, heretofore, simply assumed to have a particular meaning.

We are not, however, at war with anyone. the question will be if war powers can be envoked by the executive during large scale, congressionally apporved deployments.

 

[amicus]

As all of the combatants on this forum know full well, the Congress of the United States voted and approved the current activity in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You will also note that only Congress can appropriate money to carry out the war effort. I has done so repeatedly since the inception.

Thus, you cannot single out 'Bush' or his administration singularly as the root of all evi. You must as one recent poster did somewhere, declare that the entire majority of Americans are but adolescents and unworthy of participating in affairs of a Nation.

Which of course bares the true intent of the detractors, you really don't like America and what it stands for.

Tough Titty.


amicus....