There's still hope...
Posted by: Bob Edwards on 19 December 2003
For the rule of law in the United States:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/national/19DETA.html
The Shrub and the Ash scare me to death on these things...esp the Padilla case.
The best news I've heard all day...week...month...
Bob
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/19/national/19DETA.html
The Shrub and the Ash scare me to death on these things...esp the Padilla case.
The best news I've heard all day...week...month...
Bob
Posted on: 19 December 2003 by Justin
I care not what the small panel of the ninth circuit has said about the issues. It's the most reversed circuit in the country, and its track record is even poorer when only the samll panel is used.
That said, I've no doubt the Padilla case is probably the correct outcome. A US citizen caught on US soil is clearly entitled to civil (or court martial if a combatant) due process protections. In this case, Ashcroft simply overreached, and he should have known it, he presumably being an intelligent attorney.
As for the others in Cuba, I will be VERY interested in seeing what the Supreme Court says (which agreed to hear a case several months ago--and in that sense the 9th circuit small bank opinion is kinda superfalous). My guess is that with respect to the foreign and Alqueda fighters, they must be willing to repudiate the WWII opinion recognizing the status of enemy combatant. Even Human Rights Watch agrees that these fighters are NOT subject to these sorts of protections. As for the Taliban fighters, my guess is that they will be adjudged "POW's" under the formal meeting of that term. They were commissioned fighters for a combatant party.
My gut tells me the SC will, by and large, NOT rule that the Terrorists held in Cuba are entitled to anything other than the Military Commissions, but that the taliban fighters will get Geneva protection.
It is POSSIBLE (I hope) that because the threats and circumstances faced by the US are a bit different than those that have shaped this area of the law in the past, we MAY see an emergence of a new Jurisprudence.
In any event, i think the commissions will be fairly open.
BTW, Geneva DOES recognize the status of enemy combatant. NOT everybody is a POW.
Judd
That said, I've no doubt the Padilla case is probably the correct outcome. A US citizen caught on US soil is clearly entitled to civil (or court martial if a combatant) due process protections. In this case, Ashcroft simply overreached, and he should have known it, he presumably being an intelligent attorney.
As for the others in Cuba, I will be VERY interested in seeing what the Supreme Court says (which agreed to hear a case several months ago--and in that sense the 9th circuit small bank opinion is kinda superfalous). My guess is that with respect to the foreign and Alqueda fighters, they must be willing to repudiate the WWII opinion recognizing the status of enemy combatant. Even Human Rights Watch agrees that these fighters are NOT subject to these sorts of protections. As for the Taliban fighters, my guess is that they will be adjudged "POW's" under the formal meeting of that term. They were commissioned fighters for a combatant party.
My gut tells me the SC will, by and large, NOT rule that the Terrorists held in Cuba are entitled to anything other than the Military Commissions, but that the taliban fighters will get Geneva protection.
It is POSSIBLE (I hope) that because the threats and circumstances faced by the US are a bit different than those that have shaped this area of the law in the past, we MAY see an emergence of a new Jurisprudence.
In any event, i think the commissions will be fairly open.
BTW, Geneva DOES recognize the status of enemy combatant. NOT everybody is a POW.
Judd
Posted on: 19 December 2003 by jayd
From Scrappleface, my favorite news satire site (note, SATIRE):
Bush Declares 2nd Circuit Judges 'Enemy Combatants'
(2003-12-19) -- In the wake of yesterday's decision by a U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel ordering the government either to release accused dirty bomber Jose Padilla or to try him in civilian court, President George Bush today declared two judges on the Court to be 'enemy combatants'.
The judges, who both ruled against the Bush administration in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, have been flown to the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"These judges are a threat to our freedoms and our way of life," said Mr. Bush in a brief written statement. "In the war on terror, the battlefield has no boundaries and we can't wait until there's an imminent threat to executive privilege before taking action."
The judges will be held incommunicado for an unspecified period, or until the Supreme Court overturns the Circuit Court ruling. The prisoners of war will, of course, receive daily visits from a Muslim chaplain.
Bush Declares 2nd Circuit Judges 'Enemy Combatants'
(2003-12-19) -- In the wake of yesterday's decision by a U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel ordering the government either to release accused dirty bomber Jose Padilla or to try him in civilian court, President George Bush today declared two judges on the Court to be 'enemy combatants'.
The judges, who both ruled against the Bush administration in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, have been flown to the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"These judges are a threat to our freedoms and our way of life," said Mr. Bush in a brief written statement. "In the war on terror, the battlefield has no boundaries and we can't wait until there's an imminent threat to executive privilege before taking action."
The judges will be held incommunicado for an unspecified period, or until the Supreme Court overturns the Circuit Court ruling. The prisoners of war will, of course, receive daily visits from a Muslim chaplain.