Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

You Have The Right To Be Silenced

Expand Messages
  • Terry L Parker
    Any Citizen Designated a Combatant Loses Legal Protections Like Due Process ....deprived of life, liberty or property, without DUE PROCESS..... US Bill
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2002
      Any Citizen Designated a 'Combatant' Loses Legal Protections Like 'Due
      Process'

      "....deprived of life, liberty or property, without DUE PROCESS....." US
      Bill of Rights Amnd V

      See also the rest of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights at
      http://www.constitution.org

      Do you trust govt to just 'designate' that any citizen can just be taken
      away and silenced?


      Terror Investigations Have Two Legal Tracks

      The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system for terrorism
      suspects that lacks usual legal protections, lawyers inside and outside the
      government say.

      at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html


      By Charles Lane
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Sunday, December 1, 2002; Page A01

      The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which
      terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be
      investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal
      protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside
      the government say.

      The elements of this new system are already familiar from President Bush's
      orders and his aides' policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite
      military detention for those designated "enemy combatants," liberal use of
      "material witness" warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and
      searches led by law enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by
      military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.
      Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could ultimately
      interact.
      For example, under authority it already has or is asserting in court cases,
      the administration, with approval of the special Foreign Intelligence
      Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of a U.S. citizen's
      home and, based on the information gathered, secretly declare the citizen
      an enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base. Courts
      would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention, to the
      extent that they were aware of it.
      Administration officials, noting that they have chosen to prosecute
      suspected Taliban member John Walker Lindh, "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and
      alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in ordinary federal courts,
      say the parallel system is meant to be used selectively, as a complement to
      conventional processes, not as a substitute. But, they say, the parallel
      system is necessary because terrorism is a form of war as well as a form of
      crime, and it must not only be punished after incidents occur, but also
      prevented and disrupted through the gathering of timely intelligence.
      "I wouldn't call it an alternative system," said an administration official
      who has helped devise the legal response to the terrorist attacks of Sept.
      11, 2001. "But it is different than the criminal procedure system we all
      know and love. It's a separate track for people we catch in the war."
      At least one American has been shifted from the ordinary legal system into
      the parallel one: alleged al Qaeda "dirty bomb" plotter Jose Padilla, who
      is being held at a Navy brig, without the right to communicate with a
      lawyer or anyone else. U.S. officials have told the courts that they can
      detain and interrogate him until the executive branch declares an end to
      the war against terrorism.
      The final outlines of this parallel system will be known only after the
      courts, including probably the Supreme Court, have settled a variety of
      issues being litigated. But the prospect of such a system has triggered a
      fierce debate.
      Civil libertarians accuse the Bush administration of an executive-branch
      power grab that will erode the rights and freedoms that terrorists are
      trying to destroy -- and that were enhanced only recently in response to
      abuses during the civil rights era, Vietnam and Watergate.
      "They are trying to embed in law a vast expansion of executive authority
      with no judicial oversight in the name of national security," said Kate
      Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a
      Washington-based nonprofit group that has challenged the administration
      approach in court. "This is more tied to statutory legal authority than J.
      Edgar Hoover's political spying, but that may make it more dangerous. You
      could have the law serving as a vehicle for all kinds of abuses."
      Administration officials say that they are acting under ample legal
      authority derived from statutes, court decisions and wartime powers that
      the president possesses as commander in chief under the Constitution.
      "When you have a long period of time when you're not engaged in a war,
      people tend to forget, or put in backs of their minds, the necessity for
      certain types of government action used when we are in danger, when we are
      facing eyeball to eyeball a serious threat," Solicitor General Theodore B.
      Olson, who leads the administration's anti-terrorism legal team in the
      federal courts, said in an interview.
      Broadly speaking, the debate between the administration and its critics is
      not so much about the methods the government seeks to employ as it is about
      who should act as a check against potential abuses.
      Executive Decisions


      Civil libertarians insist that the courts should searchingly review Bush's
      actions, so that he is always held accountable to an independent branch of
      government. Administration officials, however, imply that the main check on
      the president's performance in wartime is political -- that if the public
      perceives his approach to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will
      vote him out of office.
      "At the end of the day in our constitutional system, someone will have to
      decide whether that [decision to designate someone an enemy combatant] is a
      right or just decision," Olson said. "Who will finally decide that? Will it
      be a judge, or will it be the president of the United States, elected by
      the people, specifically to perform that function, with the capacity to
      have the information at his disposal with the assistance of those who work
      for him?"
      Probably the most hotly disputed element of the administration's approach
      is its contention that the president alone can designate individuals,
      including U.S. citizens, as enemy combatants, who can be detained with no
      access to lawyers or family members unless and until the president
      determines, in effect, that hostilities between the United States and that
      individual have ended.
      Padilla was held as a material witness for a month after his May 8 arrest
      in Chicago before he was designated an enemy combatant. He is one of two
      U.S. citizens being held as enemy combatants at the Navy brig in
      Charleston, S.C. The other is Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi Taliban fighter who
      was captured by American troops in Afghanistan and sent to the U.S. prison
      at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until it was discovered that he was born in
      Louisiana.
      Attorneys are challenging their detentions in federal court. While civil
      libertarians concede that the executive branch has well-established
      authority to name and confine members of enemy forces during wartime, they
      maintain that it is unconstitutional to subject U.S. citizens to indefinite
      confinement on little more than the president's declaration, especially
      given the inherently open-ended nature of an unconventional war against
      terrorism.
      "The notion that the executive branch can decide by itself that an American
      citizen can be put in a military camp, incommunicado, is frightening," said
      Morton H. Halperin, director of the Washington office of the Open Society
      Institute. "They're entitled to hold him on the grounds that he is in fact
      at war with the U.S., but there has to be an opportunity for him to contest
      those facts."
      However, the Bush administration, citing two World War II-era cases -- the
      Supreme Court's ruling upholding a military commission trial for a captured
      American-citizen Nazi saboteur, and a later federal appeals court decision
      upholding the imprisonment of an Italian American caught as a member of
      Italian forces in Europe -- says there is ample precedent for what it is
      doing.
      Courts traditionally understand that they must defer to the executive's
      greater expertise and capability when it comes to looking at such facts and
      making such judgments in time of war, Bush officials said. At most, courts
      have only the power to review legal claims brought on behalf of detainees,
      such as whether there is indeed a state of conflict between the United
      States and the detainee.
      In a recent legal brief, Olson argued that the detention of people such as
      Hamdi or Padilla as enemy combatants is "critical to gathering intelligence
      in connection with the overall war effort."
      Nor is there any requirement that the executive branch spell out its
      criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant, Olson argues.
      "There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,"
      Olson said in the interview. "There will be judgments and instincts and
      evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that
      are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the
      circumstances."
      The federal courts have yet to deliver a definitive judgment on the
      question. A federal district judge in Virginia, Robert G. Doumar, was
      sharply critical of the administration, insisting that Hamdi be permitted
      to consult an attorney. But he was partially overruled by the U.S. Court of
      Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond.
      The 4th Circuit, however, said the administration's assertion that courts
      should have absolutely no role in examining the facts leading to an enemy
      combatant designation was "sweeping." A decision from that court is pending
      as to how much of a role a court could claim, if any. The matter could well
      have to be settled in the Supreme Court.
      Secret Surveillance


      The administration scored a victory recently when the U.S. Foreign
      Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled 3 to 0 that the USA Patriot
      Act, passed by Congress shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, gives
      the Justice Department authority to break down what had come to be known as
      "the wall" separating criminal investigations from investigations of
      foreign agents.
      The ruling endorsed the administration's view that law enforcement goals
      should be allowed to drive Justice Department requests for special
      eavesdropping and search warrants that had been thought to be reserved for
      counterintelligence operations. But the court went further, agreeing with
      the administration that "the wall" itself had no real basis in pre-Patriot
      Act law. Instead, the court ruled, "the wall" was a product of internal
      Justice Department guidelines that were, in turn, based partly on erroneous
      interpretations of the law by some courts.
      There is no clear line between intelligence and crime in any case, the
      court said, because any investigation of a spy ring could ultimately lead
      to charging U.S. citizens with crimes such as espionage.
      The decision overruled an earlier one by the lower-level Foreign
      Intelligence Surveillance Court, in which seven judges sharply criticized
      past Justice Department misstatements in applications for permission to do
      secret surveillance.
      Administration officials say that the ruling permits what is only
      sensible -- greater sharing of information between federal prosecutors and
      federal counterintelligence officials.
      Thanks to enforcement of "the wall" by FBI lawyers, they note, pre-Sept. 11
      permission to search Moussaoui's computer was not sought, a crucial missed
      opportunity to prevent the attacks.
      In practical terms, the ruling means that the attorney general would still
      have to convince the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that he has
      probable cause to believe that a given subject of a wiretap or search is an
      agent of a foreign terrorist group, a standard that is not dissimilar to
      the one required for warrants in ordinary criminal cases.
      Yet civil libertarians say that targets of such investigations who end up
      being ordered out of the country or prosecuted would lose a crucial right
      that they would have in the ordinary criminal justice system -- the right
      to examine the government's evidence justifying the initial warrant.
      "So the government starts off using secret surveillance information not to
      gather information upon which to make policy, but to imprison or deport an
      individual, and then it never gives the individual a fair chance to see if
      the surveillance was lawful," Martin said.

      © 2002 The Washington Post Company


      PeaceInTheHeartOfTexas,
      Terry Liberty Parker
      AustinVoiceMail 1.512.494.9176
      Find 21st Century 'War & Peace' via 'Search'
      on my name at: http://www.austin.indymedia.org
      Confer at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects
      WATCH LibertyTV at the 'Links' area of that site
      SeeMoreAt http://www.austinliberty.org/lptv.html
      And http://www.libertariantv.com
      Also, In Austin Every Sunday 6:30pm - ?
      I host informal discussion to which all are welcome
      who want to talk about ideas & issues of freedom
      and Reciprocal Individual Physical Autonomy
      at Hickory St Grill on 8th St & Congress Ave
      MyPicAt: http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
      http://www.publicconversations.org
      http://www.antiwar.com
      Please consider signing petitions
      at: http://www.libertarians4peace.net
      and: http://www.moveon.org
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.