Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling
{ Category Archives }
The NYT tallies the dead ahead of the 9/11 anniversary:
That means the final World Trade Center death toll will drop no lower than about 2,750, not including the 10 hijackers. Counting the 233 killed in Washington and Pennsylvania, it will remain the second-bloodiest day in United States history, behind the battle of Antietam in the Civil War.
What Middle Eastern country is most diametrically opposed to US interests and values? Saudi Arabia, of course. I almost agree with Maureen Dowd that we should invade them ahead of Iraq.
The clue that Robert Turner knows he hasn’t made the case against Jose Padilla being denied his 6th amendment rights is his use of “clearly” in the final sentence. (This works the same way as “frankly“, which Michael Kinsley pointed out is one of politician’s favorite words.)
The thing I don’t understand about conservatives’ claim that “enemy combatants” like Jose Padilla weren’t envisioned by the framers is how obviously the text of the constitution contradicts them (and these are normally the strict constructionists, no less). To quote Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Why did the framers so carefully spell out what was required for a treason conviction and that it couldn’t be lasting on the family (corruption of blood)? Because they were responding to the numerous abuses that had occurred in England of unfairly accusing and prosecuting political enemies, under the rubric of treason, while denying the accused the rights of due process.
I have little doubt that Jose Padilla is guilty of treason, although two witnesses may not be available. I think a conspiracy conviction could be achieved in a heartbeat. But I further believe that Bush and Ashcroft are subverting the constitution by denying Padilla his sixth amendment right to counsel on the accusation (not conviction) of being an enemy combatant. Someone guilty of treason (”levying war against the United States”) is clearly (just kidding about the adverb) an “enemy combatant”. And yet for a treason conviction, the Constitution explicitly required not just due process (such as the 6th amendment right to counsel) but the presence of 2 witnessess. If the framers meant to permit indefinite imprisonments under thr rubric of the commander-in-chief responsibility (Article II-2), why would they possibly have given only Congress the right to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus (Article I-9-2)?
In summary, I am flabbergasted and deeply disappointed that lawyers I respect can fail to see that they are selling out their professional responsibilities by trying to prevaricate as to how the Constitution means something different than it blatantly says about the due process rights of all citizens (especially those accused of treason/being enemy combatants), all to defend an attorney general and president who have no understanding of the way that due process of law underpins the civil society we hold dear.
The most powerful man in the world (Dick Cheney) finally explains why Hussein must go:
A nuclear-armed Mr. Hussein would “seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”
I think it’s more clear and correct to just say that Hussein is the only dictator who posesses and has used weapons of mass destruction and has previously attacked his neighbors. That also answers Saletan’s critique of Armey’s confusing doctrine. However, Cheney’s line that “a return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever” is absurd, given that the (initial, unfettered) weapons inspections destroyed ten times as many weapons as were destroyed in the Gulf War itself.
What is the only court in the US never to have heard a case? The Federal Intelligence Surveillence Appeals Court. James Bamford explains the answer, and calls Ashcroft’s enemy combatant nonsense worse than Kafka.
“The public, the court wrote, has deputized the press “as the guardians of their liberty.”‘ And we’re lucky to live in a country where that press can witness immigration trials, at least if they’re in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. I had assumed that it would take years for the courts to undo all of the damage to the Constitution that Ashcroft has wrought, but perhaps federal judges can keep overturning these absurd, embarassing, self-defeating Justice department dictates almost as quickly as they’re issued. One more quote: “A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.”
The NYT reports on the potential for a “Mesopotamian Stalingrad”. Don’t believe it (though, of course, it’s an awesome turn of phrase). The Iraqi military will crumble, as soon as US psyops broadcast an amnesty offer over loudspeakers.
Superb Findlaw review of the Hamdi case: “If the government’s view prevails, and it alone decides who is an enemy combatant, then there is nothing to stop it from declaring anyone–you, me, or Tom Daschle–an enemy combatant who can be detained indefinitely without trial.” And another one. Versus the Japanese internments in WWII, “The main distinction is that Ashcroft’s camps are smaller in scale.”
Hell freezes over, and I agree with James Baker’s foreign policy. Even if the UN hasn’t lived up to our expectations, it’s better to make an effort to get security council agreement (and probably fail to do so) before attacking, which I support.
If you don’t know the name Yaser Esam Hamdi, you soon will. He was in court today to determine whether the right of Habeas Corpus, first granted to a few English nobles in the fields of Runnymede in 1215 and guaranteed by the constitution to all US citizens, will now be taken away by the Bush Administration’s cavalier definition of an :”enemy combatant”. The NYT reports on the federal judiciary playing their role as one of the main bulwarks of liberty:
“I have no desire to have an enemy combatant get out,” the judge said. “But due process requires something other than a declaration by someone named Mobbs that he should be held incommunicado. Isn’t that what we’re fighting for?”
The Bush Administration, and especially every single Justice Department lawyer who taken part in this case, should be ashamed. History will look on them exactly as we do on the Japanese internments.