
Originally Posted by
Melonie
An appeal is already in the works ! Failing that, GWB can always ask the congress to pass a new law specifically authorizing such treatment for US citizens caught blatantly acting against their own country in time of 'war'. The criminality of such actions is not in dispute - i.e. the crime of treason has been on the books for 200+ years. The gray area lies in what to do with them between the time they are apprehended and the time they are officially charged and put on trial.
Reading the actual order will be far more illuminating on the merits of this decision than a regurgitated (reported) one or simply speculation.
http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/Padilla/Images/00000048.pdf
The real issue in question is whether or not the fact that the perpetrator happens to have obtained US citizenship will force the hearing of such a case into 'open' US civilian courts, where all sorts of important and sensitive intelligence info would have to be made public during the trial, providing a vast assistance to our 'enemies' in regard to what we know about their plans and activities plus which sources such sensitive information actually came from.
No.
The real issue in question was the interpretation and application of existing laws on the books that may conflict with each other, primarily
The Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a),
“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained bythe United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress"
and the Joint Resolution for Authorization for Use of Miliary Force (AUMF),
[i][t]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The 2nd Circuit and Supreme Court have already issued opinions in this case, ultimately remanding it on proceedural and jurisdiction grounds. Never the less, the 2nd Circuit included its own clear interpretation and opinion on the application of these laws, particularly the AUMF:
While it may be possible to infer a power of detention from the Joint Resolution in the battlefield context where detentions are necessaryto carry out the war, there is no reason to suspect from the languageof the Joint Resolution that Congress believed it would be authorizing the detention of an American citizen already held in a federal correctional institution and not arrayed against our troops in the field of battle.
Padilla
, 352 F.3d at 723
The Supremes also gave some clear repudiation of Dubya's suspension of the constitution, including this opionion from Souter:
In declaring Padilla an enemy combatant, the President relied uponfacts that would have supported charging Padilla with a variety of offenses. The government thus had the authority to arrest, detain, interrogate, and prosecute Padilla apart from the extraordinary authority it claims here. The difference between invocation of the criminal process and the power claimed by the President here, however, is one of accountability. The criminal justice system requires that defendants and witnesses be afforded access to counsel, imposes judicial supervision over government action
Even better (related case by issue, different defendant):
“[A] state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens.” Hamdi, 124 S.Ct. at 2650
Regarding the issue of national security "secrecy" of evidence, the court addresses this in footnote 13 quite succinctly and clearly:
As for concerns about national security during the judicial process, it is axiomatic that the government has a legitimate interest in the protection of the classified information that may be necessarily be used in the prosecution of an alleged terrorist such as Petitioner. This Court is of the firm opinion, however, that federal law provides robust protection of any such information.E.g. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. III.
The Federal Courts at every level have spoken: Cut this shit out, Dubya. Who the FUCK do you think you are?
Or more lady-like, in case you missed it:
"A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens" --- Sandy O'Connor
Bookmarks