If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)
Guantánamo NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers for the better part of two years. .. Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention. .. These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of checking executive power. .. In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate decided by military personnel who report only to the president. .. In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at observing a federal court order requiring that it give its detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of the courts something less than independent judicial review. .. This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the administration determined which prisoners should be released, which must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before military commissions for actual determinations of their status as prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular offense. .. What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant" case. .. In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any more than that - for example, international law protections for the treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be heard by an independent court. .. As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the executive's subsequent conduct. .. In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important, the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political wisdom of the executive's conduct. .. In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988, Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military during World War II. .. Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi - should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation - that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace. .. The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press. Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term. "Polybus" wrote in message m... Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT) Guantánamo NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers for the better part of two years. . Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention. . These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of checking executive power. . In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate decided by military personnel who report only to the president. . In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at observing a federal court order requiring that it give its detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of the courts something less than independent judicial review. . This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the administration determined which prisoners should be released, which must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before military commissions for actual determinations of their status as prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular offense. . What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant" case. . In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any more than that - for example, international law protections for the treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be heard by an independent court. . As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the executive's subsequent conduct. . In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important, the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political wisdom of the executive's conduct. . In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988, Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military during World War II. . Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi - should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation - that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace. . The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
"None" wrote in message ink.net... Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press. Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term. ----------------------- Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached. Corse |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
"Corse" wrote in message . com... "None" wrote in message ink.net... Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press. Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term. ----------------------- Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached. For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or they would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up those rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military he ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily swares an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen. That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack again and again and again. Corse |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
Mike Dobony wrote:
That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack again and again and again. And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?" If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and everyone is happy. Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for starters) that want the United States of the World. -- John Gaughan http://www.johngaughan.net/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
Ken Davey wrote:
Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am wrong; Someone?; Please? The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil. That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year about that very subject. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson
wrote: Ken Davey wrote: Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am wrong; Someone?; Please? The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil. That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year about that very subject. THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is precedent on this from WWII. But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has some precedent-- the trial of General Yama****a, which the SC heard on the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the court system did indeed have jurisdiction. THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications, the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way themselves. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
"Mike Dobony" wrote in message ... "Corse" wrote in message . com... "None" wrote in message ink.net... Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press. Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term. ----------------------- Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached. For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or they would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up those rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military he ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily swares an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen. That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack again and again and again. Such people should have their due punishment. The problem is, however, that you only have the word of the military that these people are in fact what you say they are. And the US military is under undue influence of people educated by Leo Strauss at the moment.... Nik |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
"Charles Gray" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson wrote: Ken Davey wrote: Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am wrong; Someone?; Please? The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil. That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year about that very subject. THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is precedent on this from WWII. But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has some precedent-- the trial of General Yama****a, which the SC heard on the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the court system did indeed have jurisdiction. THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications, the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way themselves. And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land. Nik. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Detained at the whim of the president
Hey None,
Just exactly what did you mean about "democratic" challengers? Didn't you mean to say "Democrat"? Do you know the difference between the two words? Now, I'm not going to decide until next November, when the election actually is,,,but don't you think it's a little early to Thank anybody that the incumbent "won't" get re-elected? On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:11:03 GMT, "None" wrote: Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press. Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term. "Polybus" wrote in message om... Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT) Guantánamo NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers for the better part of two years. . Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention. . These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of checking executive power. . In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate decided by military personnel who report only to the president. . In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at observing a federal court order requiring that it give its detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of the courts something less than independent judicial review. . This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the administration determined which prisoners should be released, which must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before military commissions for actual determinations of their status as prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular offense. . What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer "over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way "be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant" case. . In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any more than that - for example, international law protections for the treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be heard by an independent court. . As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the executive's subsequent conduct. . In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important, the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political wisdom of the executive's conduct. . In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988, Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military during World War II. . Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi - should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation - that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace. . The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOTE: Shrub in 04 | None | Air travel | 40 | December 4th, 2003 08:39 PM |
One in nine police in UK will be protecting George Bush | Meghan Powers | Air travel | 24 | November 21st, 2003 02:51 PM |