Go Directly to Jail

New Republic ^ | 19 jun 02 | Akhil Reed Amar

[white trash redneck]

I've been troubled by the conflict between the rights of innocent suspects and the need to protect ourselves from terrorism, particularly with the memory of the last administration and its contempt for the Bill of Rights and its naked ambition for power. Amar is generally a good guy on constitutional issues (despite being a Yale Law professor, he's pro-2A), and I find his article interesting, though not necessarily satisfying.

[AppyPappy]

Screw the terrorist. This is war. It ain't like they locked up Grandma Moses.

[callisto]

Americans have had to temporarily relinquish civil and other liberties during previous times of war. We'll survive this also, but IMHO due diligence should be placed in the selection and election of candidates during times when our liberties are tightened. We all remember "the last 8 years" and don't need anyone in power who would abuse it to the extent that it was then.

[3AngelaD]

Oh, good. Now we have a towelhead from Yale explaining our Constitution and civil rights to us. I never thought I'd see the day when I would prefer Alan Dershowitz. As far as I'm concerned, Padilla's procedural rights are limited to the right to procede directly to Florida, and become intimately acquainted with with Ol' Sparky.

[Dudoight]

I would like to see Padilla dealt with within the law. From what this fellow has written, it really shouldn't be too difficult.

[AppyPappy]

Oops, that includes pro-lifers et al.

Except that it doesn't. I guess pro-lifers knocked down the World Trade Center.

[white trash redneck]

Think again. Remember how they were trying to pin the WTC bombing on the NRA, talk radio, and anybody else to the right of Hillary Clintoon. We can't count on always having an administration that has fundamental respect for the constitution, and if we ever see a President Hillary, or a President Daschle, or a President Harkin, or a President Gore, I'd like to know that people who disagree with them seriously (like you and me, for starters) are not walking free only on sufferance of their Justice Department.

[evolved_rage]

And pro-lifers tend to have networks of support in this country. Padilla is prison trash, with only his family, cons, Al Qaeda, and the ACLU as friends.

[Congressman Billybob]

The sad thing about this article is it is written by a professor of law at my alma mater, and is almost right but ultimately, hopelessly wrong. The good professor makes a passing reference to a "World War II case," but dismisses its relevance.

That case, as FReepers know from my posts and from my UPI article, is In Re Quirin, 1942. In it, the Court ruled unanimously (8-0) that even an American citizen, Bruno Haupt who was born in Chicago, became an "illegal combantant" when he entered the US from a German submarine along with seven others, with plans, cash and materials to bomb various facilities. Until the Court reverses the Quirin decision, the indefinite detention of Padilla is in accord with the Constitution, with the Military Code of the US, and with the international "law of war."

Padilla should count himself lucky that he has not yet been charged and tried for "acts of war" against the United States. The eight German saboteurs were so charged, so convicted, and six of them were executed.

The professor dismisses the controlling authority of Quirin by saying that "Congress has not declared war." He has not done his homework. Contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act passed on 18 September, 2001, was a Joint Resolution that began in the Senate. That Resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary measures" to respond to 9/11, and granted him that authority under the "War Powers Act." It was not as tidy as a stand-alone document with the title, "Declaration of War." (Congressman Barr and six colleagues introduced a clean Joint Resolution to do exactly that. Theirs was tabled in favor of the Senate version.) But legally and constitutionally, it accomplished the same result.

It is sad to see people who ought to know what they are talking about, putting out discussions for the public that are fatally defective. In light of other FReepers' comments about this gentleman, I will put his instance down to incompetence, rather than bias.

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "Speaking without Talking -- Hearing without Listening."

[Dan(9698)]

As to what the "acts of war" are --- He came to do "recon" -- that is another name for "spying".

Spies are "unlawful combatants" -- They may be summarily hung.

The professor needs to read that "WWII case" he dismisses.

[AppyPappy]

Remember how they were trying to pin the WTC bombing on the NRA, talk radio, and anybody else to the right of Hillary Clintoon

Remember that no one went to jail for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

[white trash redneck]

Remember that no one went to jail for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

You make my point. What would the Clintoons have done with expanded powers?

[AppyPappy]

What would the Clintoons have done with expanded powers?

What would the Clinton's do with a time machine? Sorry, I can't have pity for a terrorist even if you believe in a Hillary conspiracy that might come later.

[white trash redneck]

What would the Clinton's do with a time machine?

I'll worry about that when it is a reasonable possibility.

Consider how the Clintoons used the IRS to harrass organizations that oppposed them. Expanded government powers without a check on their misuse are a threat to all of us.

[William Tell]

Congressman Billybob said: "Padilla should count himself lucky that he has not yet been charged and tried for "acts of war" against the United States. "

Please explain how this would differ from treason and how Padilla would then be denied the Constitutional protections specifically addressing charges of treason.

[William Tell]

Congressman Billybob said: 'That Resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary measures" to respond to 9/11, and granted him that authority under the "War Powers Act." It was not as tidy as a stand-alone document with the title, "Declaration of War." '

The portions of the War Powers Act which I have read leads me to believe that it explicitly enumerates a situation in which power to act will be granted by resolution and that it is different from a Declaration of War. Are you of the opinion that any resolution regarding War Powers is a Declaration of War? A resolution withdrawing the authority to act would certainly not be a Declaration of War, but perhaps a Declaration of Peace.

[William Tell]

AppyPappy said: "Remember that no one went to jail for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence."

I consider the murder of the children at Waco to be a direct result of the government's campaign suggesting that citizen's cannot be trusted with arms because the may cause harm. The demonization of the NRA and militia groups was a necessary prelude to killing innocent Americans for keeping and bearing arms.

[AppyPappy]

Actually, Koresh was accused of having/disributing an illegal firearm, not just a firearm. A person who is arrested for stealing cars is not the same as a person who owns a car.

[StockAyatollah]

This is war.

Congress has not declared war. They should declare war against the Saudis.