Correction. Here we have the accused appealing the decision that they are subject to military jurisdiction.
Abdullah al-Muhajir (why do the press call him Jose Padilla? Do they call Mohammed Ali `Cassius Clay'?) received
this review, and an appeal thereof. A federal judge has twice now ruled that he was being held legitimately.
With due respect, you're still living in a fantasy world (as much of a fantasy world as you were in
this thread,
in which you linked to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as
`evidence' for your claims).
The detention of those who attempt to carry out acts of war against the US as enemy combatants has been practiced since the earliest
days of the Republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in Ex Parte Quirin
in 1943. In other words, this has nothing to do with USA PATRIOT or with the current administration -- it's just what happens
if you try to sneak into the country in civilian garb to carry out acts of war.
And if you want to know how Mr. I is so sure of his claims, check out
this thread,
in which he links to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as
`evidence'.
Please go read the excerpt from Quirin which I posted above. It explicitly does not
require that the enemy be part of a regular army, for the simple reason that saboteurs rarely
are. The footnotes to Quirin list a dozen or so precedents of the lawful detention of combatants
under military jurisdiction, and few of them are of people who were strictly part of a military.
Nor does it require that we be at war with those who attack us at the time they attack us -- by such
a criteria, for example, the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor (had any been captured) would have been
immune to consideration as prisoners of war, merely becayse war had not been declared at the time.
Instead, Quirin makes it clear that is the nature of the charges which makes something fit into
military jurisdiction (much as in civilian law some charges fall under state and some under federal
jurisdiction), not the nature of those charged.
I don't think you read the article actually -- al-Muhajir travelled to Pakistan
for some time, and was picked up upon return to the US. So it sure seems to me
that your point doesn't hold. The government has presented to the judge in this
case evidence that he trained with al Qaeda in this time.
Given how many claims you base on your claim that he didn't leave the US, it's
kind of strange to me that you didn't bother to actually check this point...
Now go back and read the criteria laid out in the Quirin case:
It is
enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were
plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith
for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies
who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and
utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory
without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only
These criteria clearly match Mr. al-Muhajir. I don't see how you can make
the assertion that he wasn't fighting out of uniform because he didn't own a uniform
with a straight face. Do you really think that the law of war makes it illegal
to fight without a uniform if you own a uniform but left it home?
If anyone here is wondering where Mr. Iguanaphobic get's his conspiracy
theories, see
this thread,
in which he links to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as
`evidence' for his claims.
I suppose if you looked hard enough, you could find some `loony' sites in any
direction you want -- but I'm not the one in this conversation citing
them, and forming my opinions based on them.
To repeat what I said earlier, we've already seen what type of sites you get your information from. I think
the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your
statements. Good day.
Not necessarily, but if you consider a website which is peddling
holocaust-denial and alleging that September
11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books
about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War') to be a reliable source, then I think the readers of this
thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
Say as you will. If the only `reputable' news source you have to back
your claim is also peddling holocaust-denial and alleging that September
11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books
about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War'), I think the readers of this
thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
You do keep repeating that claim, even though you haven't presented
any evidence yet. On the other hand, since you also keep linking to news
sites promoting `Race War' and selling books denying the holocaust and lionizing
the Waffen SS, I suppose
a rational position is a little too much to hope for from you, eh?
(See here for
some of the articles on Mr. Iguana's idea of a `reputable' news site.)
And in case anyone reading here is leaning toward taking Mr. Iguana's claims here
seriously, do go read the two links he includes towards the end of
his last post, where he links to lefty sites which -- get this -- allege that the
government of the US knew about the attacks in advance (or even planned them).
And here are some of the other headlines from the two sites he links to:
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread
United Defense's flagship product is the Crusader artillery piece, which Bush and Rumsfeld have been working
to eliminate since 2000 -- but of course, like the sites you point to, you only seem to pay any attention to
evidence which supports your black-helicopter claims, no matter how strong the counter-evidence may be.
But then, what are we to expect from someone who thinks that pretty much the entire congress -- of both
parties -- is in a vast conspiracy to make a relative of the President some money? And that the US is
so powerful that dozens of nations around the world, including 90% of Europe are joining in the conspiracy
to do so?
No really -- how do you sleep with all those black helicopters overhead?
As they also teach in journalism school (or at least they did when I was there), you should look closely at your sources, and see if they are credible, and whether they have ulterior motives. With this in mind, we can surely rule out your second and fourth sources, both of which come from left-leaning sites with stated anti-corporate missions, and little or no attribution of their claims.
That leaves us with your two references to articles in more-or-less reputable business publications. But wait! If we actually read them, we soon see that they don't back up your claim at all. These piecestells us that the Carlyle group has notably failed to do a very good job of seeking profit from the current war, focusing instead on their flagship artillery offering the Crusader. In case you missed it, this is the same Crusader which Bush and Rumsfeld have been pushing to eliminate orders of since 2000.
So it looks like your theory doesn't hold up too well, eh?
Mmm-hmm. Go read the stories, will you -- they go out of there
way to try to suggest a connection, without showing any money actually
being made. And that's a pretty darn big conspiracy you're alleging.
Let's look:
First, we have to assume that the president, the cabinet, and his whole
administration are entering into war just to make money for some relative
of the president.
But wait! There's more! Then we have to assume that almost the entirety of the Senate
and 75% of the House
was in on the conspiracy, when they voted, in Joint Congressional Resolution
140 to approve the use of force!
But that's not all! Then we have to figure out how the entire United Nations
Security Council joined the conspiracy when they voted unanimously to
approve UNSC Resolution 1441 approving `serious consequences' for Mr. Hussein
if he did not take advantage of this `final opportunity'!
But that's not all you get! Then we have to understand why a majority
of Americans approve immediate action against Mr. Hussein, too (52%, according to
this week's NYTimes/CBSNews opinion poll, with 58% supporting action if
the UN doesn't act within the next week or two)!
But that's not all, either! Then we have to understand why 19 European nations,
and another several dozen nations from the rest of the world have signed on too!
You know, I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one in the world who's not
part of this `conspiracy' you allege.
With due respect, you would do yourself a service to read the thread
before jumping in in the middle.
While there is a strong argument to be made that al-Muhajir's actions
put his citizenship in question, this is entirely tangential to the case
at hand. As ruled in Ex Parte Quirin (go read it -- it's cited at least a dozen or
two times in the thread), the charges leveled against Mr. al-Muhajir are
charges which fall under military jurisdiction regardless of whether
the suspect is a citizen (as Mr. al-Muhajir still is at the moment, and as
Mr. Haupt was in the case leading to Quirin) or not.
Now, I understand that you've come to this thread several days late (and more
than a few dollars short), but given that those waging war against the US, whether
in wartime or not, and whether they are citizens or not, have been subject to
military jurisdiction since the earliest days of the republic, and given that this
practice was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the Quirin case sixty
years ago, don't you feel just a little bit silly trying to suggest
that this is something that Bush is inventing? No, really, don't you?
And given that this is a practice so old that even presidents Madison and Jefferson
used it against French port saboteurs during their own terms in office, your using
a claim that this is something new as a basis for slander against Bush obviously
isn't helping your case. But perhaps you believe that Madison, the author
of the constitution, didn't know what it said? That is the logical
conclusion of your statements...
OK, let's see if I've got this straight. Your counter-argument is that
Saddam is not an evil man, and we are trying to free Iraq's oil from sanctions
because spending billions of dollars to go to war costs less than simply... oh... waving a pen and lifting the sanctins?
No wait, that doesn't make sense. It must be because the oil companies want to
make lots of money by putting Iraq's oil back on the market, thus making oil
cheaper.
Hmm. That doesn't make any sense either. Maybe you can enlighten us?
While a good guideline, Franklin's phrase breaks down when there is more
than one liberty in play. It's easy to say that you're not willing to
sacrifice the `right' to know how to break into your local nuclear plant
and make it go critical, but there's a counterpoint, too:
See, if terrorists break into that plant and make it go critical, thus killing
you, you've lost liberty too -- you don't see any dead people practicing the
right to free speech, free press, or any of the other essential rights, do you?
This is why, in addition to setting limits on government, the Constitution also
sets responsibilities for the government, including `to provide for the common defense'.
So the real question is to find a balance between
these two potential losses of liberty. For over two hundred years, our system has
found a pretty darn good balance, which is why we have the oldest still-functioning
Constitution on the planet (older than all the current Constitutions of Western Europe
combined, for example).
No, no it hasn't -- go read the thread before you jump in in the middle.
That the pirates operated independently can be confirmed both by noting that
they reported not to any particular ruler, but received aid from many rulers
of the region, and indeed often played one against another (this is why, for
example, it was the Bey of Tunis who reigned in the pirates after the
sack of Tripoli, without consulting the Bey of Tripoli at all), and by noting
that, in seeking congressional approval for action, Madison got approval for
action against the pirates and such states as might support them, not against
any specific state.
On the contrary, the government has repeatedly indicated their desire to try
him in front of a military tribunal when the current legal tussle
over matters of jurisdiction is over. Indeed, this is central to both the
government's legal argument and the judge's ruling, since the reason for
military jurisdiction is the fact that he is charged with a crime which
falls under such jurisdiction.
You are right, of course, that the Fifth Ammendment places restrictions on
prosecutions in criminal cases, but this isn't a criminal case, it is a military
case, as discussed in the Quirin ruling.
Of course, they could also choose to drop charges at the end of hostilities,
but I'm sure you agree that this is unlikely.
But you really should go read the Quirin ruling, which is linked throughout
this thread -- it addresses each of the issues you raise, plus more.
Slashdot Mirror
In related news, embedded reporters are also being instructed not to carry Iraqi homing beacons, or gigantic signs saying ``US Troops Here ----->>''
I mean, why is this news?
Correction. Here we have the accused appealing the decision that they are subject to military jurisdiction. Abdullah al-Muhajir (why do the press call him Jose Padilla? Do they call Mohammed Ali `Cassius Clay'?) received this review, and an appeal thereof. A federal judge has twice now ruled that he was being held legitimately.
With due respect, you're still living in a fantasy world (as much of a fantasy world as you were in this thread, in which you linked to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as `evidence' for your claims).
The detention of those who attempt to carry out acts of war against the US as enemy combatants has been practiced since the earliest days of the Republic, and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in Ex Parte Quirin in 1943. In other words, this has nothing to do with USA PATRIOT or with the current administration -- it's just what happens if you try to sneak into the country in civilian garb to carry out acts of war.
And if you want to know how Mr. I is so sure of his claims, check out this thread, in which he links to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as `evidence'.
Please go read the excerpt from Quirin which I posted above. It explicitly does not require that the enemy be part of a regular army, for the simple reason that saboteurs rarely are. The footnotes to Quirin list a dozen or so precedents of the lawful detention of combatants under military jurisdiction, and few of them are of people who were strictly part of a military.
Nor does it require that we be at war with those who attack us at the time they attack us -- by such a criteria, for example, the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor (had any been captured) would have been immune to consideration as prisoners of war, merely becayse war had not been declared at the time.
Instead, Quirin makes it clear that is the nature of the charges which makes something fit into military jurisdiction (much as in civilian law some charges fall under state and some under federal jurisdiction), not the nature of those charged.
the law of war makes it illegal to fight without a uniform if you own a uniform but left it home?
that should read `law of war only makes it illegal'
I don't think you read the article actually -- al-Muhajir travelled to Pakistan for some time, and was picked up upon return to the US. So it sure seems to me that your point doesn't hold. The government has presented to the judge in this case evidence that he trained with al Qaeda in this time.
Given how many claims you base on your claim that he didn't leave the US, it's kind of strange to me that you didn't bother to actually check this point...
Now go back and read the criteria laid out in the Quirin case:
These criteria clearly match Mr. al-Muhajir. I don't see how you can make the assertion that he wasn't fighting out of uniform because he didn't own a uniform with a straight face. Do you really think that the law of war makes it illegal to fight without a uniform if you own a uniform but left it home?You seem rather a bit... confused.
In particular, you need to go back and study some more if you think Jefferson authored the Bill of Rights.
If anyone here is wondering where Mr. Iguanaphobic get's his conspiracy theories, see this thread, in which he links to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as `evidence' for his claims.
I suppose if you looked hard enough, you could find some `loony' sites in any direction you want -- but I'm not the one in this conversation citing them, and forming my opinions based on them.
To repeat what I said earlier, we've already seen what type of sites you get your information from. I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your statements. Good day.
Not necessarily, but if you consider a website which is peddling holocaust-denial and alleging that September 11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War') to be a reliable source, then I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
Say as you will. If the only `reputable' news source you have to back your claim is also peddling holocaust-denial and alleging that September 11 was carried out by the US government (all while selling admiring books about the Waffen SS and advocating `Race War'), I think the readers of this thread have all the information they need to judge your position...
You do keep repeating that claim, even though you haven't presented any evidence yet. On the other hand, since you also keep linking to news sites promoting `Race War' and selling books denying the holocaust and lionizing the Waffen SS, I suppose a rational position is a little too much to hope for from you, eh?
(See here for some of the articles on Mr. Iguana's idea of a `reputable' news site.)
And in case anyone reading here is leaning toward taking Mr. Iguana's claims here seriously, do go read the two links he includes towards the end of his last post, where he links to lefty sites which -- get this -- allege that the government of the US knew about the attacks in advance (or even planned them).
And here are some of the other headlines from the two sites he links to:
In other words, this guy is a one-man fleet of black helicopters.
As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread United Defense's flagship product is the Crusader artillery piece, which Bush and Rumsfeld have been working to eliminate since 2000 -- but of course, like the sites you point to, you only seem to pay any attention to evidence which supports your black-helicopter claims, no matter how strong the counter-evidence may be.
But then, what are we to expect from someone who thinks that pretty much the entire congress -- of both parties -- is in a vast conspiracy to make a relative of the President some money? And that the US is so powerful that dozens of nations around the world, including 90% of Europe are joining in the conspiracy to do so?
No really -- how do you sleep with all those black helicopters overhead?
I'd say that the government and people of the US have stated again and again what our aims are. Here are some examples, if you want:
Of course, to hear you tell it, all of these people are just in it to make some money for President Bush's father. Is that really your claim?
That leaves us with your two references to articles in more-or-less reputable business publications. But wait! If we actually read them, we soon see that they don't back up your claim at all. These piecestells us that the Carlyle group has notably failed to do a very good job of seeking profit from the current war, focusing instead on their flagship artillery offering the Crusader. In case you missed it, this is the same Crusader which Bush and Rumsfeld have been pushing to eliminate orders of since 2000.
So it looks like your theory doesn't hold up too well, eh?
Mmm-hmm. Go read the stories, will you -- they go out of there way to try to suggest a connection, without showing any money actually being made. And that's a pretty darn big conspiracy you're alleging. Let's look:
First, we have to assume that the president, the cabinet, and his whole administration are entering into war just to make money for some relative of the president.
But wait! There's more! Then we have to assume that almost the entirety of the Senate and 75% of the House was in on the conspiracy, when they voted, in Joint Congressional Resolution 140 to approve the use of force!
But that's not all! Then we have to figure out how the entire United Nations Security Council joined the conspiracy when they voted unanimously to approve UNSC Resolution 1441 approving `serious consequences' for Mr. Hussein if he did not take advantage of this `final opportunity'!
But that's not all you get! Then we have to understand why a majority of Americans approve immediate action against Mr. Hussein, too (52%, according to this week's NYTimes/CBSNews opinion poll, with 58% supporting action if the UN doesn't act within the next week or two)!
But that's not all, either! Then we have to understand why 19 European nations, and another several dozen nations from the rest of the world have signed on too!
You know, I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only one in the world who's not part of this `conspiracy' you allege.
I mean c'mon. That's all you've got?
With due respect, you would do yourself a service to read the thread before jumping in in the middle.
While there is a strong argument to be made that al-Muhajir's actions put his citizenship in question, this is entirely tangential to the case at hand. As ruled in Ex Parte Quirin (go read it -- it's cited at least a dozen or two times in the thread), the charges leveled against Mr. al-Muhajir are charges which fall under military jurisdiction regardless of whether the suspect is a citizen (as Mr. al-Muhajir still is at the moment, and as Mr. Haupt was in the case leading to Quirin) or not.
Now, I understand that you've come to this thread several days late (and more than a few dollars short), but given that those waging war against the US, whether in wartime or not, and whether they are citizens or not, have been subject to military jurisdiction since the earliest days of the republic, and given that this practice was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the Quirin case sixty years ago, don't you feel just a little bit silly trying to suggest that this is something that Bush is inventing? No, really, don't you?
And given that this is a practice so old that even presidents Madison and Jefferson used it against French port saboteurs during their own terms in office, your using a claim that this is something new as a basis for slander against Bush obviously isn't helping your case. But perhaps you believe that Madison, the author of the constitution, didn't know what it said? That is the logical conclusion of your statements...
Care to document your claims? Or are you just blowing hot air?
Eh?
I suppose that's what passes for a rational argument in your neck of the woods?
OK, let's see if I've got this straight. Your counter-argument is that Saddam is not an evil man, and we are trying to free Iraq's oil from sanctions because spending billions of dollars to go to war costs less than simply... oh... waving a pen and lifting the sanctins?
No wait, that doesn't make sense. It must be because the oil companies want to make lots of money by putting Iraq's oil back on the market, thus making oil cheaper.
Hmm. That doesn't make any sense either. Maybe you can enlighten us?
While a good guideline, Franklin's phrase breaks down when there is more than one liberty in play. It's easy to say that you're not willing to sacrifice the `right' to know how to break into your local nuclear plant and make it go critical, but there's a counterpoint, too:
See, if terrorists break into that plant and make it go critical, thus killing you, you've lost liberty too -- you don't see any dead people practicing the right to free speech, free press, or any of the other essential rights, do you?
This is why, in addition to setting limits on government, the Constitution also sets responsibilities for the government, including `to provide for the common defense'.
So the real question is to find a balance between these two potential losses of liberty. For over two hundred years, our system has found a pretty darn good balance, which is why we have the oldest still-functioning Constitution on the planet (older than all the current Constitutions of Western Europe combined, for example).
No, no it hasn't -- go read the thread before you jump in in the middle.
That the pirates operated independently can be confirmed both by noting that they reported not to any particular ruler, but received aid from many rulers of the region, and indeed often played one against another (this is why, for example, it was the Bey of Tunis who reigned in the pirates after the sack of Tripoli, without consulting the Bey of Tripoli at all), and by noting that, in seeking congressional approval for action, Madison got approval for action against the pirates and such states as might support them, not against any specific state.
All of this is documented at length near the beginning of Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Do you have a reference which backs up your claims?
On the contrary, the government has repeatedly indicated their desire to try him in front of a military tribunal when the current legal tussle over matters of jurisdiction is over. Indeed, this is central to both the government's legal argument and the judge's ruling, since the reason for military jurisdiction is the fact that he is charged with a crime which falls under such jurisdiction.
You are right, of course, that the Fifth Ammendment places restrictions on prosecutions in criminal cases, but this isn't a criminal case, it is a military case, as discussed in the Quirin ruling.
Of course, they could also choose to drop charges at the end of hostilities, but I'm sure you agree that this is unlikely.
But you really should go read the Quirin ruling, which is linked throughout this thread -- it addresses each of the issues you raise, plus more.