Reagan-appointed judge has words for Ashcroft

Seattle Post-Intelligencier ^ | JOEL CONNELLY

[mrsmith]

Viva Le Dissention: "expansion of individual liberty is justified by any means, including violence"
Well then it figures lying would seem to be no big matter.

This Socialist is all yours, he's too sick for me.

[AmishDude]

restricing freedom to advance liberty? I'm not sure I follow.

No, I'm sure you don't. What is "advancing liberty" exactly? Would not violence -- and death -- tend to restrict freedom a bit?

[mrsmith]

Oh, and nice work on the research!

BTW: I didn't find anything on this in the judge's remarks I linked to, they were from Thursday. But since it was the only remarks of his mentioned at the Munro site I figured the reporter just lied about the date too.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Socialist? I'm not sure you know what that word means. I have made no mention of economics. Socialism is an economic system.

You might mean Communist, which is a political system in which no the State ceases to exist as an ultimate goal, but I am neither a Communist, since Communists concede that some sort of totalitarian control is a necessity before the State dissolves.

I do, however, agree with Marx to the extent that both of us view the State as a tool used by the ruling class to exploit the People.

[Viva Le Dissention]

No. If violence is necessary to overthrow an unjust government, than it is justified, as it was during our revolution.

I don't hear too many people complaining about how our revolution was somehow immoral and unjust, as we could have solved our problems through political methods.

[AmishDude]

Thanks, but as I said before, I just looked up the guy's name on Google and linked to the first few distinct cases that showed up. I've done it before with other judges and usually boring and arcane cases come up that don't illustrate any bias. And there are almost never extra-judicial quotes!

Oh, and "count me in" is a very active newbie.

[mrsmith]

LOL! You don't know or care what you're saying troll.

But you've been used to educate people on the Constitution, and now they love it all the more for your attacks on it- and that was putting you to a good use.

[AmishDude]

I do, however, agree with Marx to the extent that both of us view the State as a tool used by the ruling class to exploit the People.

Strike three. Adieu.

[mrsmith]

"a very active newbie"

LOL! He ain't the only one.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You don't know or care what you're saying troll.

This coming from the person that didn't know what socialism meant?

You know, when you're going to try and insult someone, it's generally a good idea to get your insults right.

[mrsmith]

Wow! We've never had trolls on FR before! My goodness, what shall we ever do with you!

LOL!

[Viva Le Dissention]

Snappy. Do you know what troll means, or do you need help with that one, too?

[habaes corpussel]

"If the military Executive Branch does not convince the judge that he is lawfully considered a combatant the judge will order that he be released; if they do he may be held until the Congressional authority is rescinded.

My point stands- he is getting his H_C rights. Didn't you claim he wasn't? Forgive me if I misunderstood- that certainly seemed to be your point.

If we are finished with that, as a JAG vet, you could tell every one here what Constitutional rights an unlawful combatant has."

First, if you are saying that by petitioning the courts on a writ of habeas corpus Padilla is getting his Constitutional Rights that is a stretch. . The Executive Branch is operating under what Legal Authority? Also please tell me what Congressional Authority in this case you are speaking of? If you are speaking of Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force counts as a declaration of war that is very much a huge and open question.

The terms Unlawful and Lawful Combatants in the case of AQ and Taliban detainees is a very complex issue. Even under JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) and EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). It’s a very complex issue especially when it comes to Taliban Detainees. AQ seem to fit the classification of Unlawful Combatants. As far as rights?

Start Reading…….

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988

Law of War

Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949

[mrsmith]

"First, if you are saying that by petitioning the courts on a writ of habeas corpus Padilla is getting his Constitutional Rights that is a stretch"
You don't think an American has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
Oh my! Read my posts to that ACLU troll, or check a copy of the Constitution.
Here are some precedents why he won't be released:
See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (holding that both lawful and unlawful combatants, regardless of citizenship, "are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 313-14 (1946) (same); In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946) (same).

Are you one of those that claim that congress's authorization to use military force means that the president can only kill those people- not take any of them prisoner?
That's not a civilized way of running a war. I hope we are better than that!

Thanks for the links, I think the 'unlawful combatant factor' will be rearing it's head soon.

[jammer]

If you are not with Ashcroft, you are with the terrorists!

I couldn't tell if you were kidding or dangerous (or dumb). Must be one of the three--no other possibility.

[habaes corpussel]

First let me clear the air on my position. I support military tribunals for all suspects charged as enemies of the United States, equally. What I do not support is a disproportionate use of either the military or civilian justice systems. I do not support holding or changing the status without due process and without charge or without trial of any US Citizen. I also highly object to the Government allowing a foreign national such as in the Zacarias Moussaoui full US Constitutional Rights over that of a US Citizen. Zacarias Moussaoui has been arrested, charged and in the process of trial lawfully. Simply put, the government has seized an American citizen and stuffed him in a hole. We call that kidnapping. President Bush and his lawyers should know that our Constitution provides no such "authority for such a detention."

The government has reportedly stated that it has no plans whatsoever to bring Padilla before any tribunal. And, unless Bush changes last year's executive order, military tribunal cannot try Padilla as an American citizen. Without one, there is no truth to what White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated on June 12 -- that Quirin gives the government authority such that Padilla's incarceration "can last for the duration of the war." So much for Quirin.

In Quinn and in many cites the Supreme Court maintained:

The Court holds:
(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith.

Again the tribunal as directed by the President does not maintain a status for trying Americans formally. Congress has not specifically authorized such tribunals as it did in WWII. Furthermore the President's order also purports to eliminate judicial review even for aliens “within” the United States, a position clearly at odds with statutory and constitutional law. The Congress's joint resolution authorizing the use of force is not a declaration of war. The Presidents directive does not allow for the military to try Americans. A position I am CLEARLY at odds with. I believe a change in this Executive Order allowing Americans to be tried by the Military will meet Constitutional muster. Otherwise we open Pandora’s box and establish very dangerous presidencies.

Furthermore AQ and Taliban personnel have NOT been given POW status so the citations you cited are moot. In a POW status there is no military tribunal. War Crimes are different subjects. POW status could complicate and compound the problem. Though it would be somewhat easier as far as US and International Law is concerned. This is a point of contention even now.

The reason for Gitmo? Is because another Supreme Court decision - the 1950 ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager - holds that enemy aliens who have not entered the United States are not entitled to access to our courts. However even if not technically prisoners of war, al Qaeda and Taliban captives still qualify for "humane treatment" under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988. Which we are signatory too.

As far as the right to petition the courts for a writ of Habeas Corpus even an illegal ham and cheese sandwich has this right. It the realm of things as present to allow this to transpire in which the Government knows it will not win is going to set a legal precedence for a person “Jose Padella” that could become a determent in bringing others to trial.

Simply put, CHANGE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER!

[B Knotts]

A bit off topic, I suppose, but this is intriguing to me.

Ruled against Microsoft on a copyright case.

How in the heck is that an example of liberalism?

[AmishDude]

Essentially this judge said that "Windows" is like "Xerox" or "Polaroid" or "Kleenex". It cannot be used as a copyrighted word for an operating system because it's part of common usage. As I said (in the freakin' post itself, for crying out loud) I probably agree with the decision. In fact, this is by all appearances, a non-ideological case. If there is a liberal position to be had in this case, however, it would certainly be reflexively anti-Microsoft.

Given this judges' extra-judicial remarks, I would not be surprised if that were his motives, but who can say?

As I said in a following post, I wasn't looking for liberal decisions. I was looking for the first few that come up in a Google search. It seems that this guy has NEVER ruled on a non-controversial case and that he has yet to take a conservative stance. I've done this with other judges and I often get a balanced and boring record.

[B Knotts]

I disagree with that characterization. I think that a liberal judge would "liberally" interpret a common word to be validly copyright. A conservative judge would not allow such nonsense as a copyright on the word "window."

Anyhow...that whole "conservatives always support Microsoft" thing just gets under my skin. Microsoft is a bunch of pro-culture-of-death liberals.

[AmishDude]

Anyhow...that whole "conservatives always support Microsoft" thing just gets under my skin.

Actually, I thought that was the objection. ;) The fact is, because Sun used a variant of the word before MS, the case should have been a slam-dunk. (On the other hand, Lindows is an obvious attempt to copy the name that MS had been using.) Again, I don't see this as an ideological decision either way. One could take a look at the text of the decision itself to see what he was thinking, but I've satisfied myself that I have a handle on this judge and the overall record does not point to some right-wing ideologue by a longshot.