Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
The government of the U.S.ofA. has a long standing tradition of suspending basic rights at time of war and, under judicial imperitive, restoring them afterward. Hopefully we're seeing the start of the rights restoration phase.
The Bush administration insists that it can hold American citizens in secret as long as it wants, without access to lawyers, simply by calling them "enemy combatants." A New York federal appeals court heard a challenge to that policy this week by the so-called dirty bomber, Jose Padilla. The administration's position makes a mockery of the Constitution and puts every American's liberty at risk. It is important that the court strike it down, and give Mr. Padilla the rights he has been denied.
Mr. Padilla is an American citizen who was taken into custody in Chicago in May 2002. The government suspects him of being part of a "dirty bomb" plot by Al Qaeda, but it has not charged him. Instead, it has labeled him an enemy combatant and locked him up in a naval brig in South Carolina. He has been held there nearly 18 months, with no indication of when he will be tried or released. He has not been allowed to meet with a lawyer, despite a lower court ruling that he should be.
Of all the post-Sept. 11 denials of civil liberties, the enemy combatant doctrine is among the worst. It gives the president untrammeled authority to lock up Americans merely by asserting that they are part of a terrorist plot. In its argument to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit this week, the government insisted that military-style rules like the enemy combatant doctrine now apply to American citizens, even on American soil, because Al Qaeda has "made the battlefield the United States."
Posted by P6 at November 19, 2003 07:09 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2329I think that the saving grace of the PATRIOT act was the sunset clause. It looks like they might actually use them, given the aversion to PATRIOT II and the apparent desire of congress to let the AWB sunset. That is the first step in setting things right.
I'm surprised that few people are calling the Padilla case what it is -- as suspension of Habeas Corpus. I think it was wrong when Lincoln did it, and I think it is wrong now, but history is behind the president on this one.
As for the true enemy combatants (in Gitmo), as far as I am concerned, they are spies and unlawful combatants under the Geneva convention, and should meet a tribunal and then a firing squad.