General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBush arrested a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and held him without a trial
Human Rights Watch, 2003:
The line between war and law enforcement gained importance as the U.S. government extended its military efforts against terrorism outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In November, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency used a missile to kill Qaid Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an alleged senior al-Qaeda official, and five companions as they were driving in a remote and lawless area of Yemen controlled by tribal chiefs. Washington accused al-Harethi of masterminding the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which had killed seventeen sailors. Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative. Indeed, eighteen Yemeni soldiers had reportedly been killed in a prior attempt to arrest al-Harethi. However, the U.S. government made no public effort to justify this use of its war powers or to articulate the legal limits to such powers. It is Human Rights Watch's position that even someone who might be classified as an enemy combatant should not be subject to military attack when reasonable law enforcement means are available. The failure to respect this principle would risk creating a huge loophole in due process protections worldwide. It would leave everyone open to being summarily killed anyplace in the world upon the unilateral determination by the United States (or, as the approach is inevitably emulated, by any other government) that he or she is an enemy combatant.
<...>
The appropriate line between war and law enforcement was crossed in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who the Bush administration claimed had flown from Pakistan to the United States to investigate creating a radiological bomb. The Bush administration arrested him as he arrived in the United States, but instead of charging him with this serious criminal offense and bringing him to trial, it unilaterally declared him an "enemy combatant." That designation, it claimed, permitted it to hold him without access to counsel and without charge or trial until the end of the war against terrorism, which may never come. With no link to a discernible battlefield, that assertion of power, again, threatens to create a giant exception to the most basic criminal justice guarantees. Anyone could be picked up and detained forever as an "enemy combatant" upon the unverified claim of the Bush administration or any other government. As the year ended, the U.S. courts were considering this radical claim.
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k3/introduction.html
Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb" attack. He was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an "enemy combatant" until, after pressure from civil liberties groups, the charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
Obama signed NDAA and issued a signing statement, pledging:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)been locked out of possibility. Instead we have lame personal promises.
ixion
(29,528 posts)those now in power are accessories after the fact.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)(after which the Supreme Court turned down the government's appeal):
After much mucking about regarding SCOTUS, the Bush administration requested his transfer from the Navy brig to civilian custody; they never charged him with anything to do with a bombing.
I don't know where I'm going with this, except to say, this ain't gonna happen to US citizens in the United States.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Is that what you intend to say?
The 2012 NDAA is the first time such existing authorities have been codified in law. Is that right?
"Is that what you intend to say?"
...do you intrepret that from the OP? I mean, it states that Bush did something that Obama said he will not do.
Other than the fact that the SCOTUS would reject attempts by future Presidents to do this, the bill introduced by Feinstein would erase the ambiguity in existing law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I thought you were using Obama's promise to "be good" as a way to suggest that we shouldn't worry so much about section NDAA section 1021.
Is that not what you are doing?
Other than the fact that the SCOTUS would reject attempts by future Presidents to do this
How do you know what SCOTUS will do in the future?
I thought SCOTUS has already ruled in Hamdi that military tribunals are sufficient, courts are not needed, normal standards of evidence and proof do not apply, there need not be a presumption of innocence, and there may in fact be a presumption of guilt, even for an American citizen, as long as they are accused of being an enemy combatant first.
Did SCOTUS not already rule like that?
the bill introduced by Feinstein would erase the ambiguity in existing law.
What is the "ambiguity in existing law" that would be "erased" by Senator Feinstein's "Due Process Guarantee Act"?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)to protect us from Imperial Presidents even a they have fostered the police state for decades.
Hell, the authority is constructed to prevent any oversight from the courts anyway, the subject can be killed or disappeared without oversight. No charges required and no checks and no penalties for abuse if it was discovered by chance.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"only a fool has any confidence in the fascist courts"
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/100293141
Maybe you're onto something.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"C'mon. He said he would veto the NDAA bill and he....didn't. "
...all we have to do is way for him to do what Bush did to prove his signing statement is laughable.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Thanks for summing up his first term
Say his to Sid
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)must be a riot a parties. Or are you the person people hide from to be spared jokes with bad punchlines?
What's the diffference between Obama and Bush?
"Thanks for summing up his first term"
are entertaining, in a trainwreck sort of way
Tool
RL
Response to ProSense (Original post)
cthulu2016 This message was self-deleted by its author.
RC
(25,592 posts)That makes anyone who resists us, "Unlawful combatants" because there is no military to fight. It is a short step from there to "Terrorist" for anyone with the audacity to defend their country against the deadly invaders.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Thanks Democrats in Congress and Obama.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And the next "Bush" may authorize indefinite military detention."
I said, other than the fact that the SCOTUS would reject attempts by future Presidents to do this, the bill introduced by Feinstein would erase the ambiguity in existing law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Even long time constitutional scholars rarely try and predict how the SC is going to rule in the future. And of course the Feinstein bill has not been passed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why are you so certain of future SCOTUS rulings?"
...I should have indicated "based on the previous decision."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100057
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)It's very nice of President Obama to promise not to use this ill-gotten, unconstitutional power.
Can he assure us that the next President will do the same? How about the one after that?
Because I heard a right-wing pundit just yesterday lamenting that Jeb isn't running.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The law as now signed says it is A-OK."
...the law does not say that.
NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562
Some Senators insist the existing law does, and the need for clarification arose because of the ambiguity fueling the interpretations of existing law.
But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their fundamental civil liberties in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.
I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them, he said.
Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.
The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1
Also, as pointed out in post 3 in this thread, the SCOTUS rejected Bush's interpretation.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...not that FDR was bad, or that the people involved were bad, or that it was in any way ok what was done, but people forget that war and the concerns of war inherently hurt people's rights, sometimes arbitrarily.
I think that if all the concerns and anger and mistrust were focused on ending the war, that would be a good and productive thing; much moreso than the circular firing squads we have seen so far, however well-intentioned.
FDR used an executive order, btw, never specifically being granted the powers by congress, nor (to my knowledge) was the action challenged as it happened.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)end point.
There has never been a vague picture offered of victory.
Ending the war can only mean defunding it, ceasing to reauthorize provisions, and repealing the authorities while fully restoring our civil liberties. Ending ending the war means killing these bills and repealing and superseding existing laws, while stopping the money for the military adventures.
There is no ending imaginary wars other than stopping the pretending and the gravy train. The only firing is being done by those who want to keep playing the game and bilking out money for it.
You send this piece of garbage through and you have launched missles not bullets and launched them right into your own lines.
The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs can only be ended or won by ceasing to prosecute them, there is no other path even in speculative fantasy.
It would be nice for you to be working to end the war as you prescribe rather than offering only to continue it forever and ever in some vain effort to achieve victory that cannot be defined by anyone ever.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Which war were you referring to when you said: "I think that if all the concerns and anger and mistrust were focused on ending the war, that would be a good and productive thing; "?
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)is the one gift of the bush era to this country that seems to just keep on giving.
"The war" currently refers to two very specific things (in spite of all attempts here to render it vague and unapproachable): the war on the Taliban, an actual boots-on-the-ground endable war; and the war against Al-qaeda, which may well be fading into irrelevance. The president has ended the war in Iraq, and troop withdrawals are currently scheduled to end the war against the Taliban in about two years.
Perhaps things just need a good shove in the right direction at the ballot boxes this November at this point - if we elect politicians who will support an end. Seriously - where did all the despair come from? Why is this even an argument?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But I am sorry to be negative, but just like the war on drugs the war on terror is making money for the capitalists. I do not see any politician declaring that the war on terror is over. Airport scanners are making someone big bucks. Also, the war on terror helps the politicians keep the masses scared and malleable.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens. I thank him for the signing statement. I wish the Democrats in Congress would pass a law that clarifies what I believe the Constitution says. Future presidents may not be so decent.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Sadly in lieu of fixing the problem, he simply stated he would not use the authority to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens. "
...I'm glad he said he "would not use the authority." Now Congress should be pressured to pass Feinstein's fix.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)"...Is this the first targeted assassination of a U.S. citizen as part of the war on terror? Probably. The Bush administration killed Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish in 2002, but at least for public consumption, quickly claimed that they had been targeting someone else and Derwish was simply collateral damage. You can take that for what it's worth, but in any case, even that fig leaf is gone now: no one's even bothering to pretend that al-Awlaki's killing was anything other than deliberately planned and executed.
No one is likely to mourn al-Awlaki himself -- which is what made his assassination so safe in the first place -- but we sure ought be mourning the fact that it happened, and that it's likely to happen routinely from now on. The Obama administration has demonstrated once again, as it did in Libya and as it's done in a variety of surveillance cases, that its view of executive power in the arena of national security is hardly any less expansive than Dick Cheney's was. The fact that this was predictable makes it no less alarming. Regardless of how any of us feels about warmaking in general, there are very good reasons that national governments are more constrained in their ability to kill their own citizens than in their ability to kill foreigners, constraints enshrined in both the explicit rules and longstanding traditions of due process. That bright line has grown a lot dimmer today.
The hardcore national security hawks in both parties will likely cheer Obama's "toughness" today, but they shouldn't. Bright lines, once crossed, seldom survive. Adam Serwer has more here. Glenn Greenwald has more here."
"Obama signed NDAA and issued a signing statement, pledging:
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."