quote:GEORGE W. KAFKA:
Thu Jun 13, 7:02 PM ET
By Ted RallBush's Police State Kicks Into Gear
"Knock knock at your front door."
-Dead Kennedys
NEW YORK-It can happen to you.
The jackbooted thugs can arrest you without bothering to accuse you of a crime. They can deprive you of the right to make a phone call, to receive a visit from your family, or even to see a lawyer. It doesn't matter if you're innocent or not; our state-sanctioned terrorists can keep you locked up in prison for the rest of your life without ever granting you your day in court.
But you're an American citizen, you protest. It makes no difference whatsoever-you have no rights.
After cynically using the September 11th attacks as a pretext to eradicate one civil liberty after another, the Bush Administration has finally taken away the single most essential freedom of an American citizen: the right to due process before a jury of his peers. Classifying 31-year-old Chicagoan Jose Padilla as an Al Qaeda associate and enemy combatant, Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) authorized his transfer from a federal courthouse in New York City, where he had been held as a "material witness" on a customs violation since May 8th, to indefinite military detention at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina.
Though not legally charged, Padilla, who changed his name to Abdullah al-Mujahir after converting to Islam, is accused of planning to build and detonate a non-nuclear "dirty" radioactive bomb, possibly in Washington, D.C. Government officials concede that they have no physical evidence against Padilla-bomb components, manuals, etc.-. Their case, they admit, relies primarily on information from star canary Abu Zubaydah, an unsavory Al Qaeda operative whose Guantánamo debriefing sparked last month's flurry of warnings from Tom Ridge. Justice Department ( news - web sites) officials, an anonymous official told The New York Times on June 12th, "concluded that they could not bring a winnable court prosecution, largely because the evidence against [Padilla] was derived from intelligence sources and other witnesses the government cannot or will not produce in court."
So much for the right to face your accuser.
Padilla theoretically faces prosecution under a military tribunal. (Back in November, Bush had promised that tribunals would only be used against foreigners.) But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that even such kangaroo court justice is probably a long way off: "We're not interested in trying him at this moment." Some officials say that detainees like Padilla and those being held in the Guantánamo dog pens need not be tried until the end of the "war on terror"-which could, according to Bush himself, go on forever.
America may well be a safer place because Jose Padilla has been "disappeared," in the lexicon of Latin American death squads. But the manner in which this American has been stripped of his citizenship rights-to a lawyer, to a speedy trial, to apply for bail-is reminiscent of such totalitarian states as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. What the Bushies are doing to Padilla is an outrage-and it could happen to any of us.
The legal basis for this action is a twisted joke. "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents," ruled the Supreme Court in a precedent-setting case in 1942. The United States, however, is not at war. Congress has not declared war against the Taliban or anyone else. And while Padilla may indeed have plotted hostile acts at the behest of Al Qaeda, no one accuses him of belonging to the Taliban army. How could they? The Bushies denied P.O.W. status under the Geneva conventions to Guantánamo inmates by arguing that the Taliban never had an army.
The war on terror, like the war on drugs, isn't a state of combat. It's an advertising slogan. The bombing campaign against Afghanistan ( news - web sites) is, at most, a police action. And while there are undoubtedly organizations like Al Qaeda that hate the U.S. and mean harm to Americans, there is no legal basis for denaturalizing Americans merely because they're accused of belonging to such groups.
Ironically, this vile assault on essential American rights comes on the heels of what seems to be a previous Bush Administration abuse of Padilla's rights-he was jailed in New York for a month without being charged with a crime. Ruling in a different case, New York federal judge Shira Scheindlin recently wrote that "Relying on the material witness statute to detain people who are presumed innocent under our Constitution in order to prevent potential crimes is an illegitimate use of the statute." That ruling may have inspired Padilla's transfer to the South Carolina military lock-up.
You're probably not all that troubled about what happened to Padilla. You haven't hung out with Islamic extremists, boned up on your bomb-making skills or fantasized about Chernobylizing the Washington Mall. But don't forget: a court of law hasn't proved that Jose Padilla did either. And if George W. Bush has his way, it never will.
(Ted Rall's new book, a graphic travelogue about his recent coverage of the Afghan war titled "To Afghanistan and Back," is out now. Ordering and review-copy information are available at nbmpub.com.)
There is also precedent, if the author had bothered to look at history (WWII).
Last I checked, there is no provision in the Constitution allowing citizens to enlist in enemy armies with the express intent to detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil, then claim criminal justice protections as if he were a common thief.
Take up arms against the US, and guess what? You're now an enemy combatant first, and a (former) citizen second.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Has it been proven beyond doubt that he indeed, did what is charged with? To me it doesn't even seem like he's had a chance to defend himself.
The last time America declared war, as a matter of fact, was 5 June 1942.
This dude is not accused of commiting a crime. He has been identified as an enemy combatant attempting to inflitrate the United States for purposes of sabotage. Theoretically, he could be hauled before a tribunal and summarily executed.
Further, just read the article. One doesn't use such inflammatory language if one is making a logical point. Rhetorically, the only purpose of such prose is to arouse emotions--generally as a means of garnering support when one's case has no logical merit.
Read Mein Kampf for an excellent summary of the relevant techniques . . . and count how many are present in the above article.
Such sloppy, emotional journalism trivialized the very real implications of current policy on civil liberties, and serves only to polarize and cloud the issues, rendering meaningful public debate impossible.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now, if they made public any evidence, even so much as a publicized interview transcript (with witness name and identifying factors removed which do not pertain to the "defendant"), it might be something worth considering. But as things stand, all that is visible to anyone other than those officials making the arrest is as follows: A citizen of the United States has been arrested and moved to a military facility, where he may be detained indefinitely without trial, tribunal, or any other representation, on the basis that some unseen person supposedly claimed that said "defendant" was planning to commit mass-murder. And it's happened to him before.
I'm hoping to see Minority Report soon. Somehow I get the feeling it will remind me of this article.
Keep talking amongst yourselves, my words ain't gonna change your opinions anyway. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Mooj ]
Imagine a small child and his parents. Now imagine that SOMEONE left a half-finished bomb in the house. Note: There are also very violent and mean next-door neighbors, thanks to the parents fighting against a half-drunk Russian named Communism. Well, the Parents are looking around for someone to blame. There is a bomb in the house! (yes I know that no bomb was found in this case, which makes it even more fucking nuts). What do they do? They lock their son in his room never to leave. The explanation they give their friends? "He did something bad. We don't want to talk about it."
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Ford Prefect wrote:
'Sage, you're going to need to provide further precendence to back up your argument. The author of the article has made reference to, and given a degree of refutation against, the WWII precedent. It has also been stated by said author, and subsequently by Za'Yth, that no one has actually provided any evidence of his supposed intent.Now, if they made public any evidence, even so much as a publicized interview transcript (with witness name and identifying factors removed which do not pertain to the "defendant"), it might be something worth considering. But as things stand, all that is visible to anyone other than those officials making the arrest is as follows: A citizen of the United States has been arrested and moved to a military facility, where he may be detained indefinitely without trial, tribunal, or any other representation, on the basis that some unseen person supposedly claimed that said "defendant" was planning to commit mass-murder. And it's happened to him before.
I'm hoping to see Minority Report soon. Somehow I get the feeling it will remind me of this article.
Last I checked, people engaged in active combat against the United States don't deserve lawyers.
When intelligence determines that an enemy unit, for example, is about to launch an attack, there is no requirement for either public debate or strict standards of proof prior to taking direct action. And people captured in the process don't get to have lawyers.
Just because these guys at war with the US aren't wearing uniforms and carrying their arms openly--as required by the laws of war, btw--does not mean they aren't at war, and that they should be given the protections of our criminal justice system.
His citizenship is irrelevant.
The fact that he is an active enemy combatant is the relevant factor.
Nor is that classification one that should be open for public debate in each individual circumstance, or one that should be decided by the courts.
Read the actual statements by bin Laden and Al Qaeda--they are at war with the United States. They are not criminals in the ordinary sense, though they are war criminals not only because of the atrocities they've committed, but also because of their refusal to honor the conventions and laws of war.
Finally, my point remains: this guy is not contributing to meaningful public debate on what I have acknowledged is an area of real concern, but is simply muckraking. That kind of emotional bullshit has no place in public policy discourse.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now, if they are not not given the rights of PoWs, nor those of civillians charged with a crime, what category do they fall under?
He is probably guilty, I don't dispute that, but what if he had indeed been framed? How would he defend himself, if he is not given a trial? He can't be a PoW, because the US aren't treating terrorists as PoWs. (someone correct me if I'm wrong here)
EDIT: I'm not defending terrorists here, just suggesting that there should be some kind of solid legal framework regarding the way those people are treated, as far as I understand it, they are stuck in some kind of grey area here. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Modrakien ]
quote:
Modrakien enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Wouldn't 'enemy combatant' imply that that the person in question is a PoW? If so, wouldn't all captured Al Quaeda terrorist have to be treated as PoWs? (I read in a local paper that they in fact weren't).Now, if they are not not given the rights of PoWs, nor those of civillians charged with a crime, what category do they fall under?
He is probably guilty, I don't dispute that, but what if he had indeed been framed? How would he defend himself, if he is not given a trial? He can't be a PoW, because the US aren't treating terrorists as PoWs. (someone correct me if I'm wrong here)
That's the area in which I--personally, not professionally--disagree with the administration: I think we should classify everyone captured as POWs, then sort the mess out later. The current method invites confusion.
As a matter of fact, I've just written a thesis on that very topic. 
But it isn't as if the administration is treating the detainees badly, either. They are being given almost all of the rights accorded to POWs under the 1949 Geneva Conventions (the US is not party to the 1977 Protocol I), but they are not being called POWs, which is confusing.
The problem is that Taliban fighters, as representatives of a (now-defunct) government, are legal combatants, whereas Al Qaeda fighters, as members of a terrorist group, are illegal combatants. Regardless of their targets, their very resort to violence is illegal under the laws of war.
It's a sticky legal wicket, and morons clouding the real issues by their irresponsible use of emotionally-charged language, designed specifically to create public alarm don't help the situation.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
We are at "war" with a faction of people who will stop at nothing to make their point, including the deaths of non-combatant men, women and children, wanton destruction of civilian property, suicide bombings, etc., and we have reason to believe that this "gentleman" is one of them, but we are supposed to just let him wander around because there is no solid proof?
Excuse me, but isnt that a tad moronic?
When and if he is ever tried, if he were to be found completely and totally innocent, then i could see how a mistake had been made, an apology owed, whatever. But don't you think the fact that possibly millions of lives could be saved by 'inconveniencing' one man, already in trouble with the law, is worth the risk of being misinformed?
Geez. Land of the Free? yes. Home of the Incredibly Suicidal? not me or mine, brother. Lock 'im up, and keep 'im there until there is no cause left to die (or kill) for.
People thinking that "Well, it doesn't matter if he's innocent, he COULD be guilty."
... I understand that he's an enemy.
I think that the military being in charge of him is a good thing.
I, however, also think that he should be -charged- with something, and have an investigation ensue.
I also think that he should be CLASSIFIED as one or the other. He's either an american citizen who has conspired to do soemthing horiffic, like, say, Timothey McVey, (who was arrested and tried), or he's a POW-like-thing. (Yeah, I know. THey can't be POWs cause there IS no war. But whatever they are. And whatever the iraqi or whomever we capture before.)
If he IS classified in the McVey catagory... "Well, he may do this, so we'd better keep him behind bars, indefinatly, and not charge him with anything." .... That's just, in my opinon, stupid. It's not what our country was built on. EVERY legal citizeen, even if they are sick, and twisted, and want to mass murder millions, has the right to due process.
Yeah, it sucks. But you can't have it work for some, and not all.
Cause what if he IS innocent?
Just think on that.
His citizenship is irrelevant.
When fighting enemy combatants, one doesn't need "proof" to kill, capture, or detain them. Nor does one have to provide for lawyers or presume their innocence at any time.
"Excuse me, Mr. Iraqi tank commander, I have reason to believe you may be an enemy combatant, thinking about killing me and my soldiers, but, since you are only sitting there in your tank right now, I have no specific proof you will kill my people if we try to liberate Kuwait. Because I don't want to violate any of your rights, I've taken the liberty of providing you with a lawyer at no cost, and have scheduled public hearings so we can decide whether me and my men should shoot you or, if we capture you instead, with what crimes to charge you. Thanks for your time."
Is that what we ought to do? [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Goodbye, Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Does this apply to spies too? Can anyone that's suspected of being a spy be arrested, and locked in for the rest of their lives?
The fact is that if no proof is needed to arrest "enemies", then no proof is needed to arrest anyone. Including you.
There is no requirement to prove intent, or the occurance of any specific actions. Enemy combatant, simply because they are enemy combatants, are to be detained when captured, regardless whether they have done anything at all, much less committed crimes.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
You'd have a VERY different tone if it was anyone you knew and cared about. It's a human being. Just like you and me. He hasn't been proven to be anything. A system without boundaries or restrictions can and will be abused.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Goodbye, Bloodsage said:
BTW, if one thinks in terms of the laws of war, simply being a member of the enemy's armed forces is reason to capture and detain someone.There is no requirement to prove intent, or the occurance of any specific actions. Enemy combatant, simply because they are enemy combatants, are to be detained when captured, regardless whether they have done anything at all, much less committed crimes.
Okay. And does he wear an al-quida uniform? Is he proven to be fighting for them? What exactly, is the grounds for declaring him an enemy?
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
The thing is, Gik, he is being treated as a "POW-like thingy," to paraphrase you.His citizenship is irrelevant.
When fighting enemy combatants, one doesn't need "proof" to kill, capture, or detain them. Nor does one have to provide for lawyers or presume their innocence at any time.
"Excuse me, Mr. Iraqi tank commander, I have reason to believe you may be an enemy combatant, thinking about killing me and my soldiers, but, since you are only sitting there in your tank right now, I have no specific proof you will kill my people if we try to liberate Kuwait. Because I don't want to violate any of your rights, I've taken the liberty of providing you with a lawyer at no cost, and have scheduled public hearings so we can decide whether me and my men should shoot you or, if we capture you instead, with what crimes to charge you.
Thanks for your time."
Is that what we ought to do?
And why, again, is his citizenship irrelevent? He's a US citizen. They could as easily walk up to you, say "This person from Al-Queda said you were a spy, so, gee. No more US Citizenship for you, even though you -might- be innocent."
Is that right? I mean, that's what I'm gathering happened, but I could be very wrong. 
EDIT is just to fix the damned smiley. For some reason, IT WON'T WORK WHEN I TYPE IT. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Gikkwiny ]
How convenient for them.
That's the problem with terrorists: they've perverted the normal rules so they can wring whatever advantages they can from those who have that annoying thing called morality.
These people are at war with the United States. Just because they aren't wearing uniforms doesn't mean they have extra rights that don't normally apply during war.
As I've said, there are real issues, but fuckchop up there spouting emotional drivel impedes the process of meaningful public debate. If he had a real point, he wouldn't need the cheap emotional imagery to persuade people.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
You're applying civil law to a man who is no longer in the civil justice system.
Why is it that he isn't in civilian court? *confused* 
I'm gonna be the first one who says I know very little about US courts. So.. help?
He's now in a military holding facility. He was in a civilian holding facility because that was probally the fastest place they could setup for holding him.
The military is the one leveling charges. That's why this isn't civilian.
First, holding him indefinitely without trial or charge poses a problem. It means they can do it to anybody, and never have to prove anything or face repricussions if the person is, in fact, innocent. The military could use this as a premise to arrest & confine whomever they so please. And that's what most people see as the problem.
Second, they have admitted to holding no physical evidence against him. So what if they got the wrong guy? What if the real person used this guy's name, either by coincidence or to cover his arse with a scapegoat? Then the real assassin has all the time he needs, while the scapegoat rots in a cell.
[edit] Second person removed. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Ford Prefect ]
People have been gnawing at the bit for a scandal to flame Bush with ever since the mean nasty republican was elected. Looks like they finally found something they could spin-doctor into mud they could sling.
I particularly liked the "FREEDOM IS DEAD!" propaganda tactic. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Maradön² ]
If judgement is left disclosed, unpublic, and done by a few, it essentialy gives them unlimited power. If there's no laws to regulate it, it's completely open for abuse. Is it feasible to put this kind of power into the hands of any human? Especially in a country that calls itself democratic.
No human being is perfect. Every position of power needs to be regulated in some way. The alternative is what leads to a totalitary state.
Could they do it under normal circumstances? Probably not. Can they do it now and get away with it? You bet. The media hype over terrorism will give them the ability to do so. All it would take to sweep this under the rug is another incident of ANY kind. Hell, a training excercise gone bad that they can momentarily blame on terrorists would sweep this under the rug.
quote:
Random Insanity Generator wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
"That's the risk you take".Could they do it under normal circumstances? Probably not. Can they do it now and get away with it? You bet. The media hype over terrorism will give them the ability to do so. All it would take to sweep this under the rug is another incident of ANY kind. Hell, a training excercise gone bad that they can momentarily blame on terrorists would sweep this under the rug.
And it should just be accepted? Roll with the punches?
Detaining a citizen against which you only have loose verbal proof to even put under the war laws, nevertheless any proof that would hold in court, denying him any and all rights, and refusing him a chance to defend himself, simply doesn't belong in a democracy, no matter how you spin it.
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth's account was hax0red to write:
And it should just be accepted? Roll with the punches?Detaining a citizen against which you only have loose verbal proof to even put under the war laws, nevertheless any proof that would hold in court, denying him any and all rights, and refusing him a chance to defend himself, simply doesn't belong in a democracy, no matter how you spin it.
So you're willing to completely blow off the amitted testimony that they have from a KNOWN CRIMINAL. You're willing to risk that he's correct and honest about this point. You're willing to have that hanging over your head if/when something hits the fan?
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth had this to say about Duck Tales:
Sage, for a person to be treated until military laws, as an enemy, you need to be rather certain that he is indeed an enemy soldier.If judgement is left disclosed, unpublic, and done by a few, it essentialy gives them unlimited power. If there's no laws to regulate it, it's completely open for abuse. Is it feasible to put this kind of power into the hands of any human? Especially in a country that calls itself democratic.
No human being is perfect. Every position of power needs to be regulated in some way. The alternative is what leads to a totalitary state.
The rules are different in war. You are applying a criminal justice mindset to the problem, where you should be looking to the laws of war and traditional just war principles.
The government, in this case, has acted correctly within the laws of war.
Never forget, also, that it is the terrorists who have deliberately caused this problem by refusing to abide by the laws of war. This is not a case of a government running amok, but of an enemy trying to gain advantage by blurring the lines between civilians and combatants.
They are hoping we tie our own hands by trying to apply criminal justice procedures to combatants.
Like I said, there are real issues in need of debate, but the idiot whose article you quoted isn't contributing to the debate. He's causing more problems. And that's bad.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
>.o
During World War II, millions (I think it was millions, maybe only hundreds of thousands) of Japanese Americans were sent to detention camps. Most if not all of them were honest, hard-working citizens, and did not deserve to have their possessions and rights taken away for four years.
During the sixties, many Americans were accused of being communists during the McCarthy trials. Some actually were communists. Most, however, were completely innocent, and a few (according to required textbooks used by our high school) were political adversaries of Senator McCarthy.
Too much power in one place is rarely a good thing, and it always results in problems.
quote:
Aanicat had this to say about (_|_):
Hmmm you don't have the right to remain silent, and you don't have the right to a due process.
Not as an enemy soldier, no. Go ahead, criticize the government for not letting terrorists hang us with our own system. Hey, as long as it makes GWB look bad it's ok, right?
quote:
Goodbye, Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
The rules are different in war. You are applying a criminal justice mindset to the problem, where you should be looking to the laws of war and traditional just war principles.The government, in this case, has acted correctly within the laws of war.
Never forget, also, that it is the terrorists who have deliberately caused this problem by refusing to abide by the laws of war. This is not a case of a government running amok, but of an enemy trying to gain advantage by blurring the lines between civilians and combatants.
They are hoping we tie our own hands by trying to apply criminal justice procedures to combatants.
Like I said, there are real issues in need of debate, but the idiot whose article you quoted isn't contributing to the debate. He's causing more problems. And that's bad.
It makes no claims to be a non-biased article. I make no claims to be objective here.
But if the only possible response to terrorists is to limit the rights of your own citizens further and further, I'd rather not. I prefer fearing a group of radicals to my own governement.
But additionaly, I find the entire POW thing interesting. If he's not a POW, and he's not a criminal, then what is he? [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Enforcer Za'Yth ]
quote:
Verily, Enforcer Za'Yth doth proclaim:
It makes no claims to be a non-biased article.
psst, biased information isn't called "news", it's called "propaganda", because it's not constrained to truth.
quote:
Does this apply to spies too? Can anyone that's suspected of being a spy be arrested, and locked in for the rest of their lives?
Actually, in a state of war, spies can be summarily executed, if the country doing the capturing so desires... So, being locked up, where someone is being treated well and out of harm's way (theirs and others FROM them), isn't really all that bad, is it?
quote:
We were all impressed when Enforcer Za'Yth wrote:
And no, I don't think locking someone in for "conveniency" and "Um, we'll try him later, sorry if we're wrong" is right.You'd have a VERY different tone if it was anyone you knew and cared about. It's a human being. Just like you and me. He hasn't been proven to be anything. A system without boundaries or restrictions can and will be abused.
Maybe i would have a different attitude, if i agreed with the sentiment that my family or friends were more important the my millions of fellow humans.
Sometimes, life isn't 'fair'. Is it 'fair' to imprison him and keep him from (potentially, i will admit) harming many others? Depends on what you are using for a comparision. Was it 'fair' for the events of Sept. 11th to occur? No. Was it 'fair' to perform any of the acts of terrorism against civilian targets ever to occur in history? No.
Don't you think that to be un-'fair' to one man for the sake of untold numbers of others is more 'fair' to the others, and therefore, more "JUST"??
quote:
Maradön² painfully thought these words up:
Not as an enemy soldier, no. Go ahead, criticize the government for not letting terrorists hang us with our own system. Hey, as long as it makes GWB look bad it's ok, right?
Oh yes, and everything that doesn't praise GWB unconditionally is just childish unbased insults.
Shoe, welcome to the other foot.
I'm not really decided on what I think of this, but I want to see both sides understand each other. 
quote:
Enforcer Za'Yth painfully thought these words up:
Oh yes, and everything that doesn't praise GWB unconditionally is just childish unbased insults.
Except I haven't posted an article clearly aimed at twisting the truth around into a form suitable for mud slinging.
You're trying to prove your little propaganda leaflet is truth. I'm only trying to prove that it isn't.
quote:
This one time, at Grimguard Dirtnappin camp:
Maybe i would have a different attitude, if i agreed with the sentiment that my family or friends were more important the my millions of fellow humans.Sometimes, life isn't 'fair'. Is it 'fair' to imprison him and keep him from (potentially, i will admit) harming many others? Depends on what you are using for a comparision. Was it 'fair' for the events of Sept. 11th to occur? No. Was it 'fair' to perform any of the acts of terrorism against civilian targets ever to occur in history? No.
Don't you think that to be un-'fair' to one man for the sake of untold numbers of others is more 'fair' to the others, and therefore, more "JUST"??
Is it 'fair' to act completely out of fear, and judge without trial, thus holding potentially innocent people responsible for actions they cannot be proven to be tied to?
Is it 'just'?
You can't excuse any behaviour with Sept. 11. Fear is a much stronger breeding ground for suffering than anything else. When you act out of fear, you don't think.
