Agreed. This article raises some excellent points about the fine line between effective wartime policy & civil liberties, and proposes a solution difficult to fault: Invoking The Hamdi Rights By Charles Krauthammer Friday, August 16, 2002; Page A25 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24447-2002Aug15.html Yaser Hamdi, once a hapless Taliban soldier, has made the trajectory from capture in Afghanistan to captivity in Guantanamo to legal celebrity in the Norfolk Navy brig where he now resides. With any luck, Hamdi, like the small-time thug immortalized in the "Miranda rights," may soon ascend to the status of legal adjective. Hamdi has already had some considerable luck. The reason he is enjoying the amenities of the Norfolk brig rather than sharing the company of his fellow captives in Guantanamo is that it was discovered after his capture that he may be a U.S. citizen, having been born in Louisiana to Saudi parents. The U.S. military has classified him as an "enemy combatant," and the Bush administration refuses the demands of a U.S. District Court judge who would like him to enjoy the usual rights of American citizens: a lawyer and the presentation of evidence in court to justify his detention. Each side has its nightmare scenario. If the military is allowed to prevail, warn the civil libertarians, then any American can be seized in the middle of the night, locked up incommunicado and held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant." On the other hand, the administration believes it is absurd, indeed impossible, to fight a war with judges looking over your shoulder demanding evidence, interrogatories, paperwork and lawyers every time you seize and hold an enemy in combat. Who is right? Both are. Which is why neither should be allowed to prevail. You don't want to give the military the unrestrained right to knock on your door and pack you away. Nonetheless, as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said, in twice overturning District Judge Robert Doumar's granting Hamdi the right to counsel, "the political branches are best positioned to comprehend this global war in its full context." Clearly, the military has to be granted the right to determine who is an enemy combatant in the field. The military's job, after all, is to kill enemy combatants. What kind of logic gives the military the power to kill enemy combatants, at its own determination, but not capture and detain them? Nor is American citizenship a shield. After all, during the Civil War, Union military commanders apprehended and detained indefinitely tens of thousands of American citizens. If every Johnny Reb had been granted the rights the ACLU wants to give Hamdi, the Union would have depopulated itself sending lawyers to defend southern prisoners. Moreover, no democracy can conduct a war, which is what we are doing in Afghanistan and elsewhere, without granting a modicum of trust in the judgment and decency of its military commanders. But how much trust? The Hamdi case suggests a benchmark: as much as is necessary to successfully operate in the field. Hamdi, after all, was not picked up in a midnight raid in Louisiana for no discernible reason. He was captured in Afghanistan carrying a rifle for the Taliban. His designation is tautological. What do you call an armed enemy in a combat zone if not "enemy combatant"? In such a case, no more judicial review should be required than what the government has already provided in the Hamdi case: a short statement setting out the circumstances of his capture. You should get labeled an enemy combatant and forfeit the normal legal protections depending on the circumstances of your apprehension. Fighting with the enemy in a combat zone is a pretty good threshold. On the other hand, those who support the government's tough treatment of Hamdi should acknowledge a different standard for a citizen apprehended unarmed in the United States. In that case, legal protections should apply and the burden of proof should be on the military to prove combatant status. That means granting the defendant the right to a lawyer and requiring evidence justifying the detention, presented to a court. Call them Hamdi rights -- Hamdi being so honored not because he was entitled to them (he does not meet the criteria), but because his case brightly illuminates the problem. And the problem is the classic paradox of a free society conducting war, an enterprise whose very essence is extinguishing with extreme prejudice -- without charges, without lawyers, without appeal -- the most fundamental rights of enemy combatants (life, for starters). The Hamdi rule would allow the military commanders to do what they have to do in combat. And allow the courts to do what they have to do at home -- ensure the right of Americans seized far from the field of combat to deploy the law in their own defense.
So they aren't suspected of crimes, but only having information? That's even worse. Because the govt wants to ask someone a few questions doesn't give them the right to lock them up without representation. If the people are have information and are also guilty of crimes, then charge with them crimes. They won't be goint anywhere while they are locked up.
Good one Buck. I like Krauthammer. He usually writes pretty good analytical pieces. And it does delineate the problems inherent in the court/military tug o war. Kinda reminds me of the Dirty Harry movie (it might have been titled Dirty Harry) when he is tracking the Scorpio killer. He finally tracks the guy to a stadium and shoots him in the leg as he's running away. He goes up to find out where the girl the killer kidnapped is, and the guy says 'i want a lawyer. you can't do anything to me, blah blah.' Well Harry takes his foot and starts crushing the guys leg where the bullet went in and the guy coughs up the information. Of course when the DA gripes at Harry for it he says 'well I'm all busted up inside about his rights (or some such).' Cracks me up.
One thing to remember when you give up a right in the name of a "War on XXXX": We never get those rights back. I dont want the govt reading my email, checking out what I watch on the web, or listening to the phone calls (except when I talk to my Dad, but thats cause he's an Ambassador and I understand that his phone is probably recorded or something). Ashcroft makes me fear Big Brother. Anyone ever see The Siege? Not a great movie (but a good message). The Chronicle editorial made me think of it. If you are an American citizen, you should get representation and a fair trial.
well Why was John Linh [sp? american taliban] not under the same law? BECAUSE IT IS SELECTIVE . .and BIASED . . Rocket River
Not true. There are THOUSANDS of wartime restrictions that have been lifted once the conflict is over. Wake up. The NSA already records everything you say on the phone, email, or check out on the web (you know I love you, right NSA? ). I'm more worried about those radar ticket machines that photo your license plate. Talk about tracking our movements! RR, I think the explanation someone gave earlier is probably the correct one. Lindh had no more information they needed or could get from him, they had collected all the evidence they were going to get, and there was no reason to go to the trouble to defend the process over him, since he was no longer a real asset. It is possible that NONE of these guys will see a tribunal, but I bet the idea scares the **** out of them.
That's certainly true. BUT, he still deserves a fair trial just like everyone else. I mean, if the evidence is this overwhelming, why would we be opposed to a trial? And for every one of the shoe bomb guys, there are dozens (some say hundreds) of people who are being held right now, who are not as obvious in their alleged actions. To reply to an earlier post about this being a slippery slope, that is 100% true!! This IS a slippery slope. Just like gun control, as was pointed out. IMO, that is EVEN BETTER reason to fight this egregious invasion of our constitution. If the slope only goes further from here, just imagine what's next!!!!
giddyup, many, many people from both parties fear John Ashcroft and feel he's gone too far. This whole thing has been debated ad nauseum in another thread. In that one, Refman took the pro-Ashcroft stance. He's since changed his position, as have many, many Republicans who treasure civil liberties (like Ref does). Remember when civil liberties were the province of the right? The Libertarian Party is really only necessary because the Republican Party has become less vigilant on these issues. Just like the Green Party only exists to promote true Democratic Party ideals, which my party has become soft on. Whatever the case, Ashcroft's honeymoon is virtually over. He's a controversial, polarizing figure and, as such, is not likely to last through the next presidential election. G.W's loyal, some say to a fault, but he's not going to keep a guy on who will cost him a lot of votes from his own party. Everything else I have to say on this matter is in the other thread.
Slippery slope arguments are bogus. Cops restrict how fast you can drive on the street. That limit could continue to be reduced until it is zero. At that point your in effect under house arrest. Speed limits must be abolished because it is a slippery slope.
You see it as us against them. Fine. I, however, believe that the United States is good because of the way our government is designed, with individual liberties being paramount. In this scheme, they are bad because they seek to control the actions of every individual. In this scenerio, if we win, but loose what made us good in the first place then we might as well loose. I'm proud to be an American, not because this happens to be the particular lump of dirt upon which I was born, but because I believe in theory we represent the best of what a government could be. It seems that these types of distinctions aren't important to you.
I think Ashcroft is a polarizing figure becaue he has a tough job in a tough time. That is bound to spawn controversy. The path is not clear for him. I respect and appreciate the tough choices he has had to make. I may not prefer those choices but I understand the import of his responsibililty. I cannot get into these observations that he is destroying the constitution. He is protecting the citizenry. I don't want another 3,000 dead before we take these threats seriously. That being said, I think this slandering him as Fashcroft and likening him to fascists is ridiculous. He may or may not survive in the Cabinet. I hope he does personally. I want someone in there who is not going to go soft on these terrorists who have possible infiltrated our society. I have nothing to fear from John Ashcroft. I hope that one day we will be able to look back and applaud the job he did in a never before seen period of American history.
The same comments being made about Ashcroft now were being made before he was nominated. His job in Misouri wasn't a 'tough job in a tough time'. He's always been unable to place ideals above expediency. Furthermore, you now officially scare me, because you are willing to hand away the farm only on the basis of fear. I don't think you properly understand the value of the freedoms you've been given.
This is why the Charlton Heston's of the world are scared as well. People are willing to "hand away the farm", by usurping the 2nd amendment, on the basis of fear. I'm sure most of the Ashcroft-bashers "scare" their fair share of people as well. I'm terrified! How 'bout you? Boo!
How is it anything BUT us against them? We don't have absolute liberty. When was the last time you yelled fire in a crowded theatre, or murdered someone, or raped someone, or even cold-cocked someone? Hell, when was the last time you sped? Did you get away with it. That is for our safety. So are these measures. We aren't turning on our own citizens... unless they are trators. Those kind of distinctions are very important to me but they are buttressed by faith in the people who have the responsibility in CRUNCH TIME to protect our nation and its people. Where is your good faith in the people who are sworn to protect us?
He was freakin' elected to several offices wasn't he? You can't let your critics determine your decisions or your agenda.
The speed limit argument doesn't invalidate the concept of a slippery slope. I'd argue two things to this. First, not EVERYTHING causes the "slippery slope" effect. Second, there is always a certain point where the slippery slope goes to the point where people become outraged to the point of uncontrollable rebellion against either the law or the rulers. If the speed limit went down to 30 miles per hour on the freeway, the outrage would be HUGE. We saw the outrage at going from 70 to 55, and people are not following that law in a consistent way. It is not enforced consistently either, so people know they don't need to follow it. On the other hand, we can find tremendous illustrations of the "slippery slope" effect throughout history. Let's take something more recent that is very prominent in my field (computers). It's more complicated than this, but the way the laws have gone in terms of software/IP and consumer rights is UCITA which restricted things, but wasn't hugely invsive. Then the DMCA was passed which is fairly restrictive and highly invasive, but that's not the end. We are approaching a vote on the CBDTPA which is EXTREMELY restrictive and VERY, VERY invasive. After that, there will be something else -- there are already drafts of things more significantly surfacing. At some point, public outrage will be large enough to stem the flood of this tide. I don't want to get this off-topic, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that a simple explanation like "See the speedlimit" is NO invalidation of the slippery slope argument. I could just as easily say "See Gun Control" for an illustration of the slippery slope, but both arguments are too generic to be effective. Slippery slope does occur, and it has a very prominent role in legislation. Back to the main point, I still don't see how giving up the Bill of Rights and invalidating the constitution all of the sudden makes us safer . . .
I'm official? What is that title? Does it come with lands? When is the ceremony? Who is handing away the farm? I haven't been arrested or detained, have you? I don't know anybody who has. This is a global search for terrorists and a few people on American soil are caught up in it. I bet most of them are probably involved in terrorism. <b>Vengeance</b>: "Back to the main point, I still don't see how giving up the Bill of Rights and invalidating the constitution all of the sudden makes us safer . . ." My Bill of Rights is intact. Which ones did you lose. This is selective prosecution. What makes me feel safer is that more terrorists are in hiding and some of them are incarcerated. People are arrested and thrown in jail. Sometimes they get bail, sometimes they don't. How is this different?
And here is a well-illustrated basis for the removal of liberties. Do things just slowly enough to where it doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY effect the average person. I don't personally know anyone who's been held under the Patriot Act, but that doesn't mean it's okay, that doesn't mean that it's right. There are people who have been detained, without ANY explanation as to why to anyone, even to the accused themselves. Personally, I'm ashamed that this happens in "the land of the free". Ha. And how can we know if these people are terrorists or not? The ball is so squarely in the government's court that they will likely be found as terrorists even if they aren't. I mean, if you have no legal recourse and representation, how can you have a chance of clearing yourself?
Is this supposed to be some attempt to point out inconsistancies in my positions, because I don't think you'll find one place where I have come down in favor of restricting the second amendment.
