Originally posted by: Fern
This discussion made me curious as many issues being bandied about here. But has been so long I couldn't remeber what transpired and when. So I went over to Wiki.
If Wiki is to be believed, Padilla was involved in the judicial system from the begining. GWB relied upon an old SCOTUS case (Ex Parte Quinn) to authorize the detention. So, while the Padilla case may be rare, it is not the first time a President has detained a US citizen(s) on US soil as an enemy combatant (which allows for unlimited detention).
There were many appeals etc. The 4th Curcuit actually upheld GWB etc. (contrary to the 2nd which was dismissed by SCOTUS on technical grounds, wimping out again)
The SCOTUS appears to have dodged the opportunity to ultimately rule (they have a penchant for that).
As usual, I think much of the outrage is overwrought and over-hyped.
( I have no comments on alledged torture etc, as far I can tell, we have allegations but no proof. Furthermore, we likely have a reasonable disagreement over the definition of "torture".)
Mostly, I think this case underscores the philosophical differences of dealing with terrorism/terrorists: use of military vs. use of civilian law enforcement. Clearly those screaming of alleged civil rights abuses prefer the latter, while the administration pursued the former.
Oh, and Congress needs to be more careful in crafting legislation. I believe they bear some of the responsibility for ill defined laws that were relied upon in Padilla's case. Congress bears a great responsibility if only because under the Constitution they CAN suspend Habeas Corpus
Fern
You may find this interesting. First, it isn't Quinn, it's Quirin, who was one of eight Nazis accused of espionage. Quirin deals with Military tribunals, NOT with being detained without legal counsel for example.
See what the American Bar Association said:
"The government maintains that its power to designate an individual as an ?enemy
combatant,? and to detain that person for the duration of the present conflict without bringing
criminal charges, derives from the laws of war and Supreme Court precedent. It has relied on
Quirin and other cases to support its detention of Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi. These same authorities, however, support a right to judicial review of such status. The
Quirin case, for example, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held
incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review
and they were represented by counsel. See also In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1946). Since
the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are
entitled to review, that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully
present in the United States."
The Executive Branch argues that Quirin allows "enemy combatants" (this term in fact appears for the first time in Quirin) to be detained, but the Court in the same case said that that could be challenged and in fact the accused DID receive legal council and charges were brought against them.
Quirin is in fact a travesity in itself, where a decision was reached, six of those who were tried were executed, and THEN the court scrambled for justification for it's ruling which came out six months later. Scalia called it "not one of this court's finest hours", a clear understatement.
Speaking of Scalia, see what he has to say regarding the Executive Branch and it's tactics
HERE
So why is Scalia wanting to have thousands killed so Bush can be excoriated further? He isn't. He makes a strong rational argument.
That brings us to one thing more. Why would someone like Heartsurgeon hate another conservative like Scalia so much? That's easy. Heartsurgeon is a Liberal.
Yes, don't get upset lefties. He really is. Any extreme left or right ultimately relies on the government being superior to the people. On the right, we see examples of military governments. On the left, people like Mao. The perverted left category he and others fall into is Neoconservativism. If you look at the history of the movement, it was founded by very left leaning individuals. It's roots go back into the 60's. The basic idea parallels defective thinking similar to Johnson's Great Society. Now it is NOT wrong to use the government as a resource to promote things like economic equality. What happens is that some start to see the govt. as a solution to the problem. Use the power of Govt to coerce "right thinking" Therein lies the evil.
Well the government couldn't get inner city people who take advantage of the system to "think right". They were terribly disillusioned, however they came to believe that their problem was they hadn't gone far enough. They embraced military power, and tended to reject people like Barry Goldwater and his thinking. For those who don't know, Goldwater was a founder of what real Conservative thinking was before it was perverted and hijacked. You think there are people who despise terrorists? Nothing compared to what Goldwater thought of Communists. Why did he hate them so much (and he was over the top IMO about a lot of it)? Because they threatened the Government-NOT. In his view, they threatened the one thing America had worth fighting for, and that was freedom. That freedom was embodied by the Constitution. Any tinkering with it, any creative use of power to subvert it was abhorrent. If we could have Goldwater travel through time to now, he'd kick Bush in the nuts, then he'd get nasty.
Back to Heartsurgeon's group.
Neocons believe in social engineering, by the point of a gun if needed (Iraq), and the exercise of power, subverting the Constitution if necessary (in the case of Padilla, wiretaps without warrants etc) because the end justifies the means. Anything that offers resistance becomes the enemy. That's why they can make wild accusations and ignore that people like Scalia think their full of it when they pervert what the Founders did.
They are power mad authoritarians who see the world as those like them and everyone else as the enemy.
Maybe nostalgia comes more naturally at some point.
Facebook
Twitter