Court rules prisoner, an American-born suspected Taliban, can't meet with lawyers

Associated Press ^ | 7-12-02 | LARRY O'DELL

[Oldeconomybuyer]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) --

[SteamshipTime]

You mean it was a group of Afghan Pushtuns who hijacked those planes on 9/11? I thought it was a group of Saudis and Egyptians sponsored by the al Qaeda.

Oh well. I suppose we can always trust government to know who its real enemies are.

[Looking for Diogenes]

If you think there is a better way to understand the Constitution than by taking the understanding the Founders had of it- don't bother telling me cause I'm happy with their view!

Enforced ignorance.

Adams proposed and signed the Alien and Sedition Act. Do you really think that would be considered constitutional today, or should?

The Congress was full of Founding Fathers, but they did not all agree with his policies on the 'Quasi-War.' Neither did his Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, who helped frame the Constitution.

Yes, even the Founding Fathers were politicians.

[mrsmith]

And your complaints about Washington and Jefferson's ( and their congresses') understanding of the Constitution are?

Yes, they were politicians: the same ones who complained of the Quasi-war were the same ones who approved of the Barbary campaign!

So they were imperfect- you are avoiding the point- "If you think there is a better way to understand the Constitution than by taking the understanding the Founders had of it-" then cough it up.

[eshu]

Another DU operative heard from.

Sorry to disturb you by implying that the Bill of Rights isn't something we should just dispose of because it's no longer convenient.

Well, don't worry your pretty little head about, just meditate on the image below, it has been specially selected by a team of government psychologists who want nothing more than to relax and comfort you:

[Looking for Diogenes]

So they were imperfect- you are avoiding the point- "If you think there is a better way to understand the Constitution than by taking the understanding the Founders had of it-" then cough it up.

Since there were around a hundred men who were involved in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it's not so easy to decide what their understanding of the Constitution was. Again, should we consider the Alien and Sedition Act constitutional because some Founders supported it? Or unconstitutional because other Founders opposed it?

Most controversial, however, was the Sedition Act, devised to silence Republican criticism of the Federalists. Its broad proscription of spoken or written criticism of the government, the Congress, or the President virtually nullified the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. Prominent Jeffersonians, most of them journalists, such as John Daly Burk, James T. Callender, Thomas Cooper, William Duane (1760–1835), and Matthew Lyon were tried, and some were convicted, in sedition proceedings. The Alien and Sedition Acts provoked the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and did much to unify the Republican party and to foster Republican victory in the election of 1800. The Republican-controlled Congress repealed the Naturalization Act in 1802; the others were allowed to expire (1800–1801).
infplease

And your complaints about Washington and Jefferson's ( and their congresses') understanding of the Constitution are?

I don't have time to give you an analysis of Washington and Jefferson's constitutional understanding. For the purposes of this argument I am satisfied to show that the Founding Fathers were in disagreement about when wars should be declared.

[eshu]

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that enemy combatants are not criminals - in fact, it would be a violation of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war to treat them as such - and therefore criminal defendants rights don't apply?

Why don't we just have our government contact his embassy and inform them that our President has declared war on countries that harbor terrorists and that they need to hand over anyone else with seditious or revolutionary ideas they might be harboring or face the consequences?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Can you provide an example in which Washington, Adamas, or Jefferson referred to their military actions as 'wars?'

I believe that they knew they were not at war.

Americans are asking, ``How will we fight and win this war?'' We will direct every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war - to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network. Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Speech By President George W. Bush on September 20, 2002

[mrsmith]

"I am satisfied to show that the Founding Fathers were in disagreement about when wars should be declared. "

Then satisfy yourself, you certainly haven't yet.

And clear up your statement that Pickering "did not agree with his policies on the quasi war"- do you have some citation that he opposed on Constitutional grounds the conduct of it by Acts of congress?

A rejection of the understanding of the Constitution accepted and acted on by both Federalist and Republican, the first three administrations and their congresses, is- frankly- bizarre.

[mrsmith]

"Can you provide an example in which Washington, Adamas, or Jefferson referred to their military actions as 'wars?' "

If they did not refer to their congressionally authorized use of our military to kill, take prisoner, and capture lands and goods as a war- it would have exactly what relavance to whatever your contention is?

[Looking for Diogenes]

And clear up your statement that Pickering "did not agree with his policies on the quasi war"- do you have some citation that he opposed on Constitutional grounds the conduct of it by Acts of congress?

Pickering apparently felt that the U.S should go to war with France, rather than just skirmish with them. To the best of my knowledge, it was not a constitutional issue, but a policy one. The point is that there was not unanimity among the early politicians on war matters..
http://virtualpubliclibrary.com/postmasterhall/TIMOTHYPICKERING.NET/
http://www.studyworld.com/John_Adams_Critical_Review.htm

A rejection of the understanding of the Constitution accepted and acted on by both Federalist and Republican, the first three administrations and their congresses, is- frankly- bizarre.

I am not arguing that the Congress did not explicitly or tacitly agree to non-declared military actions. I am arguing that a military action is a military action and not a war. If we want special war-time laws and regulations in place, there should be a declared war. Those special laws seem to be warranted; so is a declaration of war.

[spqrzilla9]

Hey, an "enemy combatant" is anyone the gubmint chooses to designate as such.

I have some friends in 10th Mountain who would enjoy having you tell them that they haven't been fighting anyone.

[Militiaman7]

What really is scary is how you terrorist supporters can't tell the difference between a citizen who has broken the law and is entitled to Constitutional protection and person who has denounced his citizenship by taking up arms against the United States and no longer has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Your either for us or against us. There is no middle ground.

[mrsmith]

"If we want special war-time laws and regulations in place, there should be a declared war. "

Ah, there we can agree.
The congressional authorization for the use of military force has sufficed so far- it certainly allows the detaining of military combatants.
A DOW could have negated the need for the Patriot Act ( if combined with a susension of Habeus Corpus)- but then the administration would have even more extraordinary powers than we are worried about now. My view is much like I suspect Pickering's was- a DOW (a general war) gives the president more leeway to conduct a successful campaign.
Questioning the wisdom ( not the Constitutinality) of conducting limited- or declared for that matter general- war is always a commendable act of course.

BTW: the ruling in this case, which I linked to above, is very informative and is impressive whatever one's view.

[mrsmith]

You have no point but your contempt for Washington, Jefferson, Adams and their congresses ie: the Founders.

If you think you can write a better constitution than they did go over to DU and be a hero!

Hatred of our Founders and the Constitution they bequethed us often looks like ignorance (some people never heard of the Indian wars, the Quasi-war, or the Barbary pirates) but a contemptuous unconcern with the Founders- like your posts evince- eventually shows through.

[Militiaman7]

I will cut no quarter with anyone who tries to use the Constitution of the United States to destroy the same. Citizen, non-citizen, illegal alien, a$$-wipe suck-up liberal anti-American scum or some ignorant misguided do-gooder who hasn't the sense to know what's right.

[Lower55]

A jury of your peers. Should we get the detainees to sit on the jury. PLEASE grow up.