Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)

Guantánamo

NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
for the better part of two years.
..
Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
..
These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
checking executive power.
..
In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
..
In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
the courts something less than independent judicial review.
..
This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
offense.
..
What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
"over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
"be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
case.
..
In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
more than that - for example, international law protections for the
treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
heard by an independent court.
..
As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
executive's subsequent conduct.
..
In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
wisdom of the executive's conduct.
..
In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
during World War II.
..
Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
..
The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.



"Polybus" wrote in message
m...
Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)

Guantánamo

NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
for the better part of two years.
.
Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
.
These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
checking executive power.
.
In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
.
In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
the courts something less than independent judicial review.
.
This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
offense.
.
What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
"over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
"be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
case.
.
In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
more than that - for example, international law protections for the
treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
heard by an independent court.
.
As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
executive's subsequent conduct.
.
In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
wisdom of the executive's conduct.
.
In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
during World War II.
.
Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
.
The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached.


Corse

"Corse" wrote in message
. com...

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating
on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be impeached.



For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or they
would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up those
rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military he
ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in
another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily swares
an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.

That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would have
just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
again and again and again.

Corse

Mike Dobony wrote:
That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
preparing to attack again and again and again.

And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"

If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
everyone is happy.

Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
starters) that want the United States of the World.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

Ken Davey wrote:

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
about that very subject.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

Ken Davey wrote:

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
about that very subject.

THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
precedent on this from WWII.
But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
some precedent-- the trial of General Yamashita, which the SC heard on
the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
court system did indeed have jurisdiction.
THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
themselves.

"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...

"Corse" wrote in message
. com...

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt
his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating
on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.



For doing trhe right thing? Either we deal with these murderers now or
they
would continue to deal with us later. This so-called citizen gave up
those
rights by serving in a foreign military. By joining teh foreign military
he
ceased to be a US citizen just as one does when one desires citizenship in
another country. In order to join a foreign military one customarily
swares
an oath to that country. He therefore gave up all rights as a citizen.

That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore would
have
just let the terrorists continue on their merry way preparing to attack
again and again and again.


Such people should have their due punishment. The problem is, however, that
you only have the word of the military that these people are in fact what
you say they are. And the US military is under undue influence of people
educated by Leo Strauss at the moment....


Nik

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

Ken Davey wrote:

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo
they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I
am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
about that very subject.

THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
precedent on this from WWII.
But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
some precedent-- the trial of General Yamashita, which the SC heard on
the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
court system did indeed have jurisdiction.
THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
themselves.


And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't paid
rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.


Nik.

Hey None,
Just exactly what did you mean about "democratic" challengers?
Didn't you mean to say "Democrat"? Do you know the difference between
the two words? Now, I'm not going to decide until next November, when
the election actually is,,,but don't you think it's a little early to
Thank anybody that the incumbent "won't" get re-elected?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:11:03 GMT, "None" wrote:

Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to hurt his
chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers are beating on
these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.



"Polybus" wrote in message
om...
Detained at the whim of the president (Deborah Pearlstein IHT)

Guantánamo

NEW YORK The Bush administration has taken several important steps in
recent days to resolve the legal status of some of the hundreds of
people that the United States has detained without access to lawyers
for the better part of two years.
.
Last weekend, the administration indicated that it would begin
repatriating some of the 660 people detained without any judicial
review at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A few days
later, the Pentagon announced that it would begin making arrangements
to allow Yasser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, access to a lawyer after
more than 20 months of incommunicado military detention.
.
These steps are welcome. But they should be understood as part of a
broader strategy. The announcement on Guantánamo comes just weeks
after the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court holding that
the federal courts had no jurisdiction to evaluate the legality of the
Guantánamo detentions. And the decision to allow Hamdi access to a
lawyer was announced on the day final briefs were due to the Supreme
Court, which is now deciding whether to take the case. It is difficult
to see the timing as coincidental. For the past two years, the Bush
administration - far more so than previous "wartime" executives - has
been very effective at keeping the courts out of the business of
checking executive power.
.
In the two years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration has
established a set of extra-legal structures designed to bypass the
federal judiciary. It has maintained that those detained by the United
States outside U.S. borders - at Guantánamo and elsewhere - are beyond
the jurisdictional reach of the U.S. courts altogether. Individuals
subject to military commission proceedings - which two years after
their announced creation have yet to begin - are to have their fate
decided by military personnel who report only to the president.
.
In the "enemy combatant" cases involving U.S. citizens that have made
their way into lower courts, the administration has balked at
observing a federal court order requiring that it give its
detainee-citizens access to counsel, and has consistently demanded of
the courts something less than independent judicial review.
.
This refusal to be bound by established rules - to pursue ad hoc
justice at best - is what makes the recent steps of small comfort. And
while the military released 20 Guantánamo prisoners last week, those
released were simultaneously replaced with the same number of new
prisoners. It is unclear who the new arrivals are, where they were
held before arriving at Guantánamo, and what will be their fate now
that they are there. Likewise, it remains unclear how the
administration determined which prisoners should be released, which
must stay, and which - if any - will eventually be brought before
military commissions for actual determinations of their status as
prisoners of war, or their guilt or innocence of any particular
offense.
.
What is more striking is that the Pentagon, in announcing that it
would be making arrangements for Hamdi to have access to a lawyer
"over the next few days," insisted that such access was only being
granted "as a matter of discretion and military policy," not to comply
with any requirement of domestic or international law. Indeed, the
Pentagon maintains that its decision for Hamdi should not in any way
"be treated as a precedent" to be used in any other such "combatant"
case.
.
In any event, the decision to grant Hamdi access to counsel after
nearly two years did not commit the administration to providing any
more than that - for example, international law protections for the
treatment of prisoners of war, or constitutional requirements that he
be afforded notice of any charges against him and an opportunity to be
heard by an independent court.
.
As made clear in the cases that the administration has cited in
support of its sweeping claims of authority - including the use of
military tribunals and the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II - the Supreme Court has not always acted to enforce
rights in favor of the individual against the executive asserting
special "wartime" power. But the Supreme Court's involvement in those
cases conveyed a critical message that even in times of greatest
strain, executive power remained subject to the rule of law. The
court's published opinions clarified the nature of the executive's
claims of authority, and provided a basis against which to judge the
executive's subsequent conduct.
.
In vigorous and public dissenting opinions, minority justices in those
cases gave expression to the strong opposing arguments on the
resolution of the legal questions presented. Perhaps most important,
the Supreme Court's decisions provided Congress, legal scholars and
the American public a means for understanding and, in the relative
calm of postwar decision-making, for re-evaluating the political
wisdom of the executive's conduct.
.
In 1971, Congress established that "no citizen" shall be "detained by
the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." And in 1988,
Congress awarded reparations to the remaining survivors and
descendants of Japanese-American citizens interned by the military
during World War II.
.
Despite the Bush administration's best efforts of late to convey the
appearance of action, the Supreme Court - poised to hear the
Guantánamo case, and now deciding whether to hear the case of Hamdi -
should not be misled by atmospherics. At stake in the cases now at the
court's doorstep is one of America's most basic ideals as a nation -
that the rule of law is a matter of right, not a matter of grace.
.
The writer directs the U.S. Law and Security Program for the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights, and is editor of "Assessing the New
Normal," a book on liberty and security in the United States since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
Muslims for simply that, being free. The members of the coalition that
you conveniently always forget about with 23 other countries, are
currently fighting back against this Jihad, while you conveniently
watch CNN and call this "Bush's War"!!!! C;mon grow some stones and
fight back! Do you have the STONES to stand up to them???? I'm dam
sure glad we have a president AND a congress (yes dorothy you seem to
forget they bilateraly voted FOR this action). What is wrong with you
people??? You have no clue how American Government works??? Bush
couldn't have possibly done this on his own, he had support and
guidance from the majority, which is how it works. Its so funny that
when we actually attacked these fanatics, these freedom haters, that
the majority supported the action. Now that the going is tough, we now
know who the weak are....thanks for showing us your true soul Mike

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:44:40 -0600, John Gaughan
wrote:

Mike Dobony wrote:
That crybaby needing-his-diaper-changed, spoiled rotton brat Gore
would have just let the terrorists continue on their merry way
preparing to attack again and again and again.

And if a Libertarian were President, all of our troops would be back on
U.S. soil, and we would not be ****ing off the arabs and picking fights
with foreigners, i.e. "you will accept capitalism whether you want to or
not. Why are you upset? Why are you attacking us?"

If I complain about bee stings, well, maybe I shouldn't have ****ed on
the bee hive. If I mind my own business, they leave me alone and
everyone is happy.

Except, of course, certain politicians (Republicans and Democrats, for
starters) that want the United States of the World.

You're wrong,,,is there a US Flag flying on the base?? It's not US
soil sorry Ken.. But I see your point. Good point.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:46:36 -0800, "Ken Davey"
wrote:

Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?
Ken.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:34:02 GMT, user wrote:
What the heck are you talking about Mike? It isn't about the US
****ing off the Muslims, its all about free societies ****ing off the
Muslims for simply that, being free.

I'll beleive that one someone flies a plane into Canary Wharf or
[some-tall-building-in-Japan].


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...
Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that things
would be so much easier if he were one?


-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of
the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?

Nope, you aren't. Sorry.

Good luck trying to convince the sheeple that they've been had. I've been
trying for months.

mellstrr--it's a dirty job, but somebody better do it soon...

Corse wrote:
"None" wrote in message
ink.net...
Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.

Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.

-----------------------

Hold that thought. He shouldn't be re-elected. He should be
impeached.

Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
wrong; Someone?; Please?
Ken.