U.S. Citizen isn't "Enemy Combatant"

[Natoma]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/

“As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation,â€￾ the court said.

“But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress,â€￾ it added.

I think it's very key that they addressed the fact that they are well aware of the risks that Al-Qaeda presents to our nation. But they were exactly right by saying that even with the risks, we cannot destroy our own liberties. That in essence would give the victory to the terrorists.

This next part is certainly very pertinent for all americans, and something I have long held as a key sticking point in my dissent against the Patriot Act:

Padilla’s lawyer, Donna Newman, told MSNBC TV that the ruling was "a big victory for the American people" because it upheld the rights of every citizen to confront his or her accuser in a court of law.

Newman has battled in court to be able to meet with Padilla; she has not done so since he was designated an enemy combatant the month after he was arrested.

That an american citizen could be arrested and detained without trial and without charge, for indefinite amounts of time, is a key infringement upon our liberties. It's about time that horrid provision in the Patriot Act was repudiated.

I am glad however regarding this point:

In its ruling, the court said it was not addressing the detention of any U.S. citizens seized within a combat zone in Afghanistan.

If you're caught in a war zone fighting against the USA, even as an american citizen, your rights as an american citizen should most certainly be suspended. You forfeit them as soon as you pick up a gun against our troops and our nation.

 

[ByteMe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/

?As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation,? the court said.

?But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress,? it added.

I think it's very key that they addressed the fact that they are well aware of the risks that Al-Qaeda presents to our nation. But they were exactly right by saying that even with the risks, we cannot destroy our own liberties. That in essence would give the victory to the terrorists.

This next part is certainly very pertinent for all americans, and something I have long held as a key sticking point in my dissent against the Patriot Act:

Padilla?s lawyer, Donna Newman, told MSNBC TV that the ruling was "a big victory for the American people" because it upheld the rights of every citizen to confront his or her accuser in a court of law.

Newman has battled in court to be able to meet with Padilla; she has not done so since he was designated an enemy combatant the month after he was arrested.

That an american citizen could be arrested and detained without trial and without charge, for indefinite amounts of time, is a key infringement upon our liberties. It's about time that horrid provision in the Patriot Act was repudiated.

I am glad however regarding this point:

In its ruling, the court said it was not addressing the detention of any U.S. citizens seized within a combat zone in Afghanistan.

If you're caught in a war zone fighting against the USA, even as an american citizen, your rights as an american citizen should most certainly be suspended. You forfeit them as soon as you pick up a gun against our troops and our nation.

You are NOT going to believe this, but we agree (or I agree with you). I think I better go shower.l

 

[John Reynolds]

Heh, I agree too, but I'm not feeling dirty because of agreeing with Natoma.

j/k

Edit: speling isshoes.

 

[Natoma]

My friend who reads these forums but hasn't registered said I should start up a blog. He thinks I'd be a natural blogger.

I might do that. Who knows.... Should cut down on the political spam in this forum.

 

[RussSchultz]

Why split hairs between where the person commits the crime? Does it matter that he's fighting US troops in afghanistan vs. blowing up radialogical bombs in NYC? Is either more "criminal" and less "military" than the other?

I agree there should be a hearing to determine the status, and that he should be represented for that hearing. I don't agree that somehow him being on american soil somehow makes it a criminal act and outside the juristiction of the military waging war.

 

[Sxotty]

Why split hairs between where the person commits the crime? Does it matter that he's fighting US troops in afghanistan vs. blowing up radialogical bombs in NYC? Is either more "criminal" and less "military" than the other?

I agree there should be a hearing to determine the status, and that he should be represented for that hearing. I don't agree that somehow him being on american soil somehow makes it a criminal act and outside the juristiction of the military waging war.

Yes, no.

He wasn't blowing up radiological bombs, that is the key.

I have to dissent, and assent here.

If he actually had committed a terrorist act, then I would say he is an enemy combatant, however he did not. They simply said they thought he would. If the government arrested you russ and said gee whiz I think he might be going to do something terrible, I would want to see some sort of proof and to let you see an attorney and so forth. IMO until one actually commits the act they should be treated as a criminal matter.

The point raised however is very applicable, it some militia starts fighting against the US from Montana, then they are enemy combatants in my eyes, but perhaps not in others...it will have to be dealt with eventually.

 

[Natoma]

Why split hairs between where the person commits the crime? Does it matter that he's fighting US troops in afghanistan vs. blowing up radialogical bombs in NYC? Is either more "criminal" and less "military" than the other?

I agree there should be a hearing to determine the status, and that he should be represented for that hearing. I don't agree that somehow him being on american soil somehow makes it a criminal act and outside the juristiction of the military waging war.

As Sxotty said, he was accused of plotting to blow up a radiological bomb. He hadn't committed any crime as far as the officials knew. He was merely suspected.

If he did the action, then yes he should be called an enemy combatant. Here or on other soil. However since there was no actual detonation of a radiological device, and as far as they know only a suspicion, then he should be accused and brought to trial, not held indefinitely without lawyer, as you stated. That is a fundamental american right.

 

[kyleb]

our laws are reasonably suited to dealing with a someone who does detonate a radiological bomb while still recognizing the rights of their citizenship. so why is there any need for the label of "enemy combatant" to be applied in such a situation; shouldn't we just leave that for foreign terrorists?

 

[RussSchultz]

Assume Abdullah al-Muhajir (Jose Padilla) is a member of Al Qaeda, and has, as an intentional act of war, planned and conspired with foreign nationals and other US citizens to purpetrate an attack on US sovereign territory, individuals, and/or property.

When does this act become a military act, rather than a criminal act?

 

[Sxotty]

IMO it is when he carries it out.

I think to prove that people are trying to do ill the same rules should be used, otherwise perfectly innocent people could be detained forever.

 

[RussSchultz]

So you're suggesting we'd have to wait until a bomb went off to call it an act of war? Supposing they plant the bomb, and it never detonates?

otherwise perfectly innocent people could be detained forever

I don't believe that's necessarily true. A hearing (with representation) would be held to determine whether the activity constituted an act of war (military jurisdiction) or a criminal act. Each jurisdiction has their own associated rights; a military jurisdiction doesn't boil down to "held indefinately without trial".

 

[FUDie]

If he actually had committed a terrorist act, then I would say he is an enemy combatant, however he did not.

Hold it. Whatever happened to "due process" or "innocent until proven guilty"? The laws of this country (USA) should not be suspended because the government decides to call someone an "enemy combatant".

They simply said they thought he would. If the government arrested you russ and said gee whiz I think he might be going to do something terrible, I would want to see some sort of proof and to let you see an attorney and so forth. IMO until one actually commits the act they should be treated as a criminal matter.

Criminal acts should be prosecuted in criminal courts.

The point raised however is very applicable, it some militia starts fighting against the US from Montana, then they are enemy combatants in my eyes, but perhaps not in others...it will have to be dealt with eventually.

What's wrong using the judicial system we have now? This crap of "enemy combatants" sounds like a cheap way to nullify our constitutional rights. You don't get a trial. You don't get a chance to defend yourself. The government calls you an "enemy combatant" and that's it.

This is not the way America was meant to be.

-FUDie

 

[jvd]

Wait some of you would rather have had this guy go through with his plan ? YO uwould rather have him kill people and then have him tried ?

If the usa has proof that he conspired against the country then he should be considered a terrorist. He should be tried by the goverment. If it is only something he has said then it should be a civilian thing.

 

[FUDie]

Wait some of you would rather have had this guy go through with his plan ? YO uwould rather have him kill people and then have him tried ?

If the usa has proof that he conspired against the country then he should be considered a terrorist. He should be tried by the goverment. If it is only something he has said then it should be a civilian thing.

Conspiracy is still a crime in this country. Proving it can be tricky, I guess, but the laws and courts are able to handle it. Ever hear of "conspiracy to commit murder"? There are laws for other such things, too.

Care to try again?

-FUDie

 

[jvd]

Wait some of you would rather have had this guy go through with his plan ? YO uwould rather have him kill people and then have him tried ?

If the usa has proof that he conspired against the country then he should be considered a terrorist. He should be tried by the goverment. If it is only something he has said then it should be a civilian thing.

Conspiracy is still a crime in this country. Proving it can be tricky, I guess, but the laws and courts are able to handle it. Ever hear of "conspiracy to commit murder"? There are laws for other such things, too.

Care to try again?

-FUDie

Murder is crime. THe courts can handle it fine. Even a multi murder case would be fine. But using something of that power on usa soil should be handled by the military.

 

[FUDie]

Murder is crime. THe courts can handle it fine. Even a multi murder case would be fine. But using something of that power on usa soil should be handled by the military.

But if it wasn't used, then it's only a conspiracy. The military does not belong in our judicial system.

-FUDie

 

[RussSchultz]

Murder is crime. THe courts can handle it fine. Even a multi murder case would be fine. But using something of that power on usa soil should be handled by the military.

But if it wasn't used, then it's only a conspiracy. The military does not belong in our judicial system.

-FUDie

The judicial system shouldn't be used to fight wars.

Whether or not a terrorist operation was successful is a piss poor way of separating criminal action from a military attack.

 

[FUDie]

Murder is crime. THe courts can handle it fine. Even a multi murder case would be fine. But using something of that power on usa soil should be handled by the military.

But if it wasn't used, then it's only a conspiracy. The military does not belong in our judicial system.

The judicial system shouldn't be used to fight wars.

Whether or not a terrorist operation was successful is a piss poor way of separating criminal action from a military attack.

So if the military says "We heard Russ Schultz conspiring to commit a terrorist act and are classifying him an enemy combatant." we should all just sit back and be happy? Where's the proof? Where's probable cause? What if the military got it wrong?

The military doesn't have the same checks and balances the rest of our legal system does.

-FUDie

 

[RussSchultz]

Never you mind the rest of what I've written in this thread.

 

[FUDie]

Never you mind the rest of what I've written in this thread.

But do we have this today? Not that I am aware of.

-FUDie