By Cernig
How's this for a scary sentence?
Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe and says that Congress gave the president this power when it passed the passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Lawyers for a US resident declared an illegal combatant and taken out of the civilian justice system to a military brig in South Carolina so that he can be interrogated without a lawyer present say that it's unconstititional and that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.
Oh my, aren't you excitable.
ReplyDeleteA Qatari national, al-Marri came to the U.S. with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001 � one day before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
...
According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
The FBI interviewed al-Marri that October and arrested him in December as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. He rarely had been attending classes and was failing in school, the government said.
...
When investigators looked through his computer files, they found information on industrial chemical suppliers, sermons by bin Laden, how-to guides for making hydrogen cyanide and information about chemicals labeled "immediately dangerous to life or health," according to Rapp's court filing. Phone calls and e-mails linked al-Marri to senior al-Qaida leaders.
So "nobody is safe" from the fate that befell this man, if you all fit the same mould he does. And you don't. In fact none of you do. So, if you were an honest person, you would instead say that "everyone is safe" from this. But you're not.
"First they came for the Jews. And I did not speak up because I was not a Jew..."
ReplyDeleteIf the CNN report on Al-Marri is true, then let the government bring their evidence to a court of law. But no, the Bush administration turns its back on eight hundred years of settled law and claims the powers of a tyrant.
I don't care how much of a monster Al-Marri is. If any human being is denied the most basic rights of liberty, then we all are.
Cain,
ReplyDeleteThe rule of law applies to all - good and bad alike - that's a hallmark of civilisation. Have you heard of the concept of "precedent"? Well, if this detention goes unchallenged this administration will have set a precedent in law to give the executive a power that can be used on anyone whether or not they are actually a bad person. The power is independent of the individual case here and its evidence. Do you trust Clinton or Obama with that power? How about the president after that, or the one after that..?
What's scary is not so much the sentence, which is par for the course with this administration, but the fact that guys like Cain either can't comprehend or decide to willfully ignore the implications of such a sentence.
ReplyDeleteYou're safe if you've done nothing wrong? I really wonder where these people acquire their unlimited trust in the omniscience of the government to never, ever make any mistakes and to never, ever use this unlimited power to detain and hold citizens indefinitely to do something they may disagree with. I can only speculate that they think they'll always be the ones wearing the jackboots and therefore have nothing to worry about.
"Cain, The rule of law applies to all - good and bad alike - that's a hallmark of civilisation. Have you heard of the concept of "precedent"?"
ReplyDeleteYeah. My understanding is that concept would apply to things like the US renditions program, torture of terrorist suspects and warzone detainees, operating secret black-site prisons, domestic spying and..... detaining US residents (in the case of al Qaeda affiliates) in secret and without charge for years.
Those all being things that had/were occurring the day before Bush took office. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the word.
So if you were asking for a way to get around the problem of "precedent" in this regard, the solution would appear to be forget this ever happened and act all surprised and outraged if it ever comes up again.
"Well, if this detention goes unchallenged this administration will have set a precedent in law to give the executive a power that can be used on anyone whether or not they are actually a bad person."
Bullshit. The article you link to specifies the law under which this man was detained using these powers. To think such a thing you'd need to make a claim that this guy is such a generic citizen who's done nothing out of the ordinary to qualify him for action under any of the CT legislation that this is the reason it could happen to anyone.
I think if you could have done that, you would have. You can't and you're not going to.
"Do you trust Clinton or Obama with that power? How about the president after that, or the one after that..?"
What difference does my level of trust have in regard to the solid gold fact that this will occur under the next president after Bush, just like it happened under the president before him?
The only way it doesn't happen is if it does and then you convince yourself it didn't, as happened with Bill. Something all evidence points to a repeat performance of.
"...guys like Cain either can't comprehend or decide to willfully ignore the implications of such a sentence. You're safe if you've done nothing wrong?"
ReplyDeleteNot nothing. I'd get 400 years if I was charged with everything I've done.
You are however safe from penalties imposed under a specific law if you have absolutely no connection to the provisions of that specific law. For instance, you are safe from the penalties imposed on those trading in endangered species if you do not trade in endangered species. In fact if you don't trade in ANY kind of animals, your level of danger is reduced to the point of being non-existent.
You are not 6 years old and you already understand this. I do not have to explain to you that this does not render police provisions for how long they may detain you without charge for every other offence obsolete because you already understand this too.
So tell me your concerns are that you are involved in some type of terrorist-like activity that you fear could be misconstrued as qualifying you for the same treatment as this guy who received funds in the US from the same guy Mohammed Atta did.
Or admit that the application of this law applies to an amount of people more accurately described as "nobody" than "everybody".
Cain,
ReplyDeleteI'd even agree with you if this were that perfect universe you hail from where, Platonically, only trhe guilty are ever arrested and charged.
Regards, C
Who's talking about "in a perfect world", you dishonest fear monger?
ReplyDeleteI think if you could have done that, you would have. You can't and you're not going to.
Why not try on the one we have. In it you are left pointing to someone with the same evidence trail tying him to al Qaeda that Mohammed Atta had when ringing the alarm bells that "nobody is safe".
Your warning that everyone should be afraid of this is literally:
"If it could happen to Mohammed Atta it could happen to anyone".
Be outraged!!!!
Yeah, it's me who's living in an alternate universe. You're just fine.
I'm sad to say that Cain does actually have a point here. al-Marri was seized under the AUMF, which gave the president unenumerated powers against those who had "plotted" and "participated" in the 9-11 attacks. Here's the problem, though: who proves that he was?
ReplyDeleteAs the article says, if we are at war, and al-Marri is an enemy soldier, then our military doesn't need to prove anything, nor put him through the criminal justice system. But what if he's not a soldier? What if the government says those two guys taking pictures on the Seattle ferry were enemy combatants? The Seattle tourists wouldn't have had any more recourse than al-Marri has had.
And how have they proved al-Marri was an enemy combatant? We have a list of what the "authorities say" is the evidence against him. Who can challenge and review that evidence? The government says no one can, and that's what has us here all up in arms. We know "24" is fiction and in real life we can't ask the scriptwriter if the guy in front of us is really, truly a terrorist and not just a tourist. Al-Marri was living lawfully; I'm sure the money was given to him legally, if from a nefarious source; and (as long as it's not child porn) how are the contents of his hard drive illegal? He wasn't captured for doing anything illegal, the article says.
So is the al-Marri case a criminal matter or a military matter? America seems to be twenty years behind the curve in the legal side of things as well as the military side of things. Is there a lawyer version of William Lind out there?